Srom  i^  &t6targ  of 

(J0equeaf0eb  fig  ^tm  fo 
t^  feiBrarg  of 

(Princeton  C^cofo^icaf  ^eminarj? 


Br 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY: 

A  SERIES  OF  QUESTIONS 

UPON  THE 

LECTURES  DELIVERED  TO  THE  STUDENTS 
IN  PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

BY   THE 

Rev.  CHARLES    HODGE,  D.D. 


EDITED  BY  A  MEMBER  OF  THE  SENIOR  CLASS, 
AND 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE  STUDENTS. 


PHILADELPHIA. 
1865. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1865, 

By  Eev.  FEEDERICK  H.  WINES, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the 

Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 

PRINTEn    BY    ALFRED    MARTIEN,    PHir.APEI.PHlA. 


tv 


PREFACE 


Dr.  Hodge's  method  of  teaching  theology  to  the  students 
in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton  is  by  manu- 
script lectures,  which  he  reads  to  the  successive  classes. 
The  questions  printed  in  this  volume  are  his  own  ques- 
tions upon  his  own  lectures,  and  furnish  a  general  but 
not  an  exhaustive  view  of  the  course  of  study  pursued  in 
his  department.  They  have  been  arranged  for  publica- 
tion, (by  authority  of  the  Senior  Class,)  and  appropriate 
headings  added  to  them,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  indicate 
to  the  eye  the  analysis  of  the  subject,  by  one  of  the  stu- 
dents, with  Dr.  Hodge's  consent,  but  without  his  super- 
vision or  revision.  Whatever  of  defect  there  may  be  in 
the  arrangement  is  due  to  the  compiler. 

At  present  Dr.  Hodge  is  engaged  in  rewriting  his  entire 
course  of  lectures,  and  has  progressed  as  far  as  the  subject 
of  Original  Sin.  Up  to  this  point,  the  questions  are  upon 
the  new  course.  The  remaining  questions  are  upon  the 
old  course.  In  the  new  lectures,  some  modifications  of 
the  general  outline  have  been  made,  which  will  account 
for  the  imperfection  of  this  analysis.  Attention  is  espe- 
cially called  to  the  transfer  of  the  subjects  of  Election, 
Reprobation,  and  the  order  of  the  Decrees,  from  Theology 


Proper  to  Soterology;  and  to  the  new  division  of  tlie 
subject  of  Soterology  into  five  parts.  These  changes  were 
announced  in  the  class-room,  while  these  questions  were 
in  the  hands  of  the  printer,  and  too  late  for  any  alteration 
in  the  book. 

It  only  remains  to  add,  that  this  book  is  printed,  but 
not  published.  It  is  printed  for  the  use  of  students  only, 
and  will  not  be  exposed  for  sale  in  bookstores.  A  few 
extra  copies  have  been  printed,  to  accommodate  the 
graduates  of  the  Seminary,  and  may  be  obtained  of 
Mr.  Alfred  Martien,  606  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia. 

F.  H.  W. 

Princeton,  March,  1865. 


SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 


NATURE,  FORMS,  AND  SOURCES  OF  THEOLOGY. 

FIRST.    ITS  NATURE. 

/.   THEOLOGY. 

What  is  the  etymological  meaning  of  the  word  "theology?" 
What  are  the  objections  to  defining  theology  as  the  science  of  the 

supernatural  ? 
In  what  sense  is  it  the  science  of  religion? 

//.  RELIGION. 
What  is  the  etymology  of  the  word  "  religion?" 
What  are  the  different  senses  in  which  it  is  used  ? 

///.   RELATION  BETWEEN  RELIGION  AND 
THEOLOGY. 

[I.]  SCHLEIERMACHER'S  THEORY. 

1.  Stated. — In  what  sense  is  the  word  "religion"  taken  by  the 

school  of  Schleiermacher  ? 
What  is  theology,  according  to  their  view  ? 
According  to  their  view,  what  is  Christianity? 
In  what  relation,  according  to  them,  do  different  religions  stand 

to  each  other  ? 

2 


6  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

What  are,  according  to  their  theory,  the  doctrines  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ? 

What  authority  do  they  give  the  Scriptures,  as  a  rule  of  faith  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  this  theory  pro- 
ceeds upon  a  wrong  view  of  the  nature  of  religion,  and 
especially  of  Christianity  ? 

(2.)  How  does  it  contradict  the  Scripture  account  of  the  impor- 
tance of  truth  ? 

(3.)  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  universal 
fliith  of  the  church  ? 

[II.]   THE  TRUE  VIEW. 

In  what,  then,  is  theology  the  science  of  religion  ? 


SECOND.    ITS  FORMS. 

In  what  two  methods  has  God  revealed  to  men  the  truth  concern- 
ing himself  and  our  relation  to  him  ? 

[I.]   NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  Natural  Theology? 

In  what  sense  is  the  word  "nature"  taken,  when  we  speak  of  the 
religion  of  nature,  or  of  Natural  Theology? 

2.  Its  Value. — What  are  the  extreme  opinions  as  to  the  value 

of  Natural  Theology? 

How  may  it  be  proved  that  a  trustworthy  revelation  of  truth  is 
made  in  nature  ? 

How  may  it  be  shown  that  such  revelation  is  inadequate  to  salva- 
tion ? 

What  is  the  true  value  and  use  of  Natural  Theology? 

[IL]   REVEALED  THEOLOGY. 

What  is  Christian  Theology? 

What  is  the  distinction  between  Biblical,  Systematic,  Polemic, 
and  Casuistic  Theology? 


NATURE,   FORMS,   AND    SOURCES   OF   THEOLOGY. 


THIRD.    ITS  SOURCES. 

What  are  the  four  different  theories  as  to  the  source  of  our  know- 
ledge of  divine  things,  or  of  the  rule  of  faith  ? 

/.  RATIONALISM. 
[I.]   RATIONALISTIC  THEORIES. 

What  is  rationalism  ? 

§  1.  Deism. 
What  is  the  deistical  form  of  rationalism  ? 
Why  is  that  form  of  rationalism  called  naturalism  ? 
In  what  other  sense  is  the  vrord  "  naturalism"  used? 
What  is  reason  ? 
What  is  meant  by  a  supernatural  revelation  ? 

1.  Possibility  op  a  Revelation. — (1.)  "UTiat  is  the  meta- 

jyhi/sical  ground  on  which  rationalists  deny  the  possibility  of 

such  a  revelation  ? 
How  may  their  arguments  on  that  point  be  answered  ? 
(2.)  T\Tiat  is  the  moral  argument  of  rationalists  against  such  a 

revelation  ? 
What  is  the  next  point,  after  the  possibility  of  a  revelation, 

involved  in  this  controversy? 

2.  Necessity  of  a  Revelation. — How  may  the  necessity  of  a 

supernatural  revelation  be  proved  ? 

3.  Fact  op  a  Revelation. — What  are  the  heads  of  argument 

to  prove  that  such  a  revelation  has  been  made,  and  is  re- 
corded in  the  Christian  Scriptures  ? 

§  2.  Partial  Revelation. 
What  is  the  second  and  more  common  form  of  rationalism  ? 
What,  according  to  this  form  of  rationalism,  is  the  class  of  truths 

revealed  in  the  Bible  ? 
On  what  is  our  assent  to  them  founded  ? 
How  do  rationalists  get  rid  of  that  class  of  truths  contained  in 

Scripture,  which  arc  truths  of  the  reason  ? 

§  3.  Accommodation. 
What  is  the  doctrine  of  accommodation  ? 
On  what  principle  is  this  form  of  rationalism  founded  ? 


o  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  comprehension  of  the  object  of 
faith  is  not  necessary  to  rational  assent  ? 

[II.]  THE  TEUE  VIEW:  OR,  THE  OFFICE  OF  REASON. 

§  1- — What  is  the  first  office  of  reason,  in  matters  of  faith? 
What  is  it  to  know  ? 
What  is  it  to  comprehend  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  knowledge,  or  the  exercise  of  reason 

in  cognizing  truth,  is  essential  to  faith  ? 
What  is  this  use  or  office  of  reason  called  by  the  older  theologians  ? 

§  2. — What  is  the  second  office  of  reason  ? 
What  is  meant  by  the  Judicium  contradictionis  rationis? 
What  is  credible  ?  and  what  incredible  ? 
How  show  that  the  strange,  the  improbable,  the  unaccountable, 

the  incomprehensible,  may  be  objects  of  faith? 
How  show  that  the  impossible  cannot  be  believed  ? 
What  is  impossible  ? 
How  show  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  reason  to  judge  whether 

the  doctrines  proposed  to  our  faith  are  "  "    " 

§  3. — What  is  the  third  office  of  reason  ? 
What  is  the  kind  of  evidence  required  to  establish  a  supernatural 

revelation  ? 
By  what  standard  does  reason  judge  of  that  evidence  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  such  is  the  province  of  reason  ? 
What  do  the  old  theologians  understand  by  the  iisus  catasceuasti- 

cus  and  nsus  anasceuasticus  of  reason  ? 
AVhat  is  philosophy  ? 

What  is  the  relation  between  philosophy  and  theology? 
How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  former  is  subordinate  to  the  latter? 
How  do  Romanists  and  Protestants  differ  concerning  the  office  of 

the  senses,  in  matters  of  faith  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  that  point 

is  correct  ? 

//.  ENTHUSIASM. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  the  popular  meaning  of  the  word  "enthu- 
siasm ?" 

What  is  its  etymological  signification  ? 

In  what  sense  is  the  word  "  mysticism"  used  in  the  history  of 
philosophy  ? 


NATURE,    FORMS,    AND    SOURCES    OF   TUEOLOGY.  9 

In  what  sense  is  it  used  by  rationalists  and  others,  as  applicable 

to  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  influence  '( 
What  is  its  strict  and  proper  sense  in  theology? 

2.  History  op  the   Theory. — How  far  were   the   Montanists 

mystics  and  enthusiasts  ? 

What  was  the  character  of  the  Alexandrian  school  ? 

How  far  was  their  peculiar  doctrine  allied  to  rationalism  ?  and 
how  far  to  enthusiasm  ? 

How  far  do  the  modern  Transcendentalists  adopt  the  same  prin- 
ciple? 

Who  was  Dionysius  the  Areopaf/ite  ?  and  what  work  bearing  his 
name  became  the  foundation  of  the  mystical  theology  of 
the  3Iiddle  Ages? 

What  were  the  leading  principles  of  that  work  ? 

Who-  were  the  most  prominent  mystics  before  the  Reforma- 
tion ? 

On  what  ground  did  Luther  pronounce  the  Romish  system  to  be  a 
form  of  enthusiasm  ? 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  early  Anahaptiats  upon  this  subject? 

Who  were  the  Quietists  ?  and  what  were  their  doctrines  ? 

What  was  the  origin  of  the  Quakers  ? 

Who  are  their  standard  writers  ? 

What  do  they  teach  (1.)  as  to  the  nature  of  the  inner  light? 
(2.)  as  to  its  universality?  (3.)  as  to  its  office?  (-4.)  as  to 
its  authority  and  relation  to  the  Scriptures  ? 

What  is  their  doctrine  concerning  the  Scriptures  ? 

How  does  this  system  differ  from  rationalism  ? 

How,  from  spiritual  illumination  ? 

How,  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  leading  of  the  Spirit? 

How,  from  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  common  grace  ? 

3.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument   against  the    Quaker 

doctrine  from  experience  and  histoi-y  ? 

(2.)  From  the  want  of  any  criterion  for  this  inner  light,  by 
which  to  distinguish  it  from  the  operations  of  our  own 
minds  ? 

(3.)  From  the  errors  and  evils  to  which  it  has  led  ? 

(4.)  From  Scripture  ? 

(5.)  From  its  ignoring  the  distinction  between  inspired  and  unin- 
spired men  ? 

(6.)  From  its  tendency  to  subvert  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  ? 


10  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

///.  ROMANISM. 
[I.]  THE  EOMAN  CATHOLIC  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

What  is  the  Roman  Catholic  rule  of  faith  ? 

§  1.  The  Scriptures. 

How  do  they  agree  with  Protestants  as  to  the  authority  of  the 

Scriptures  ? 
How,  as  to  the  canon  of  Scripture  ? 

1.  The  Apocrypha.— How  do  they  regard  the  apocrypha? 

2.  Completeness. — "What  is  their  doctrine  concernino-  the  com- 


pleteness of  Script 


ure : 


What  are  the  principal  doctrines  which  Romanists  say  are  a  part 
of  divine  revelation,  and  yet  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures? 

3.  Perspicuity. — What  is  their   doctrine   concerning  the   per- 

spicuity of  Scripture  ? 
On  what  ground  do  they  deny  the  right  of  private  judgment  ? 
Who  do  they  say  has  the  right  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  ? 
How  far  does  the  Church  of  Rome  discourage  the  use  of  Scripture 

by  the  people  ? 

4.  The  Vulgate.— What  were  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of 

Trent  concerning  the  vulgate  ? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  their  decree  ? 

§  2.  Tradition. 
What  does  the  word  TiapadooK;  mean  in  the  New  Testament  ? 
In  what  sense  did  the  early  fathers  use  the  word  ? 
How  did  their  doctrine  differ  from  that  of  Romanists  ? 

1.  Classification. — Into  what  three  classes  do  Romanists  divide 

tradition  ? 

2.  Office.— What,  according  to  their  doctrine,  is  the  office  of 

tradition  ? 

3.  Authority. — What  its  authority? 
What  is  the  ground  of  that  authority? 

4.  Criterion. — What  is  the  criterion  for  distinguishing  between 

true  and  false  traditions  ? 

§  3.  Infallibility  of  the  Church. 
1.  Its  Source.— What  is  the  church,  according  to  Romanists? 
What  its  office  as  a  teacher  ? 


NATURE,   FORMS,   AND   SOURCES   OF   THEOLOGY.  11 

How  qualified  for  that  office  ? 

2.  Its  Limits. — Within  what  limits  is  the  church  infallible  ? 

3.  In  WHOM  Resident. — (1.)  What  is  the  Episcopal  theory  as 

to  the  organs  of  the  church's  infallibility  ';* 
(2.)  What  is  the  Papal  or  Transmontane  theory  ? 
When,  according  to  this  theory,  is  the  Pope  infallible  ? 

[II.]  THIS  THEORY  EXAMINED. 
§  1.  Tradition. 

What  is  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  common  consent,  and  the 

analogy  of  faith  ? 
How  does  the  Romish  doctrine  of  tradition  differ  from  this  as 

to    the   origin,  nature,  and    authority  of   this    common 

consent  ? 
What  is  the  real  status  quxstionis  on  this  subject? 
(1.)  What  is  the  a  priori  argument  against  the  Romish  doctrine 

of  tradition  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  fact  that  there  is  in  Scrip- 
ture promise  on  of  infallibility  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  absence  of  any  criterion  for 

distinguishing  between  true  and  false  traditions  ? 
What  is  the  criterion  by  which  Romanists  determine  between 

them? 
How  may  it  be  shown  that  there  is  no  such  common  consent  as 

that  which  they  assert  ? 
Why  may  not  ancient  creeds  prove  such  consent  ? 
Why  may  not  early  councils  prove  it  ? 
Why  may  not  the  writings  of  the  fathers  ? 
How  do  Romanists  abandon  the  criterion  of  common  consent  ? 
(4.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  inaccessibility  of  this  rule 

of  faith  ? 
(5.)  What  from  its  human  origin  ? 
(6.)  What  from  Scripture  ? 

§  2.  Scripture. 
How  show  that  Protestants  do  not  adopt   the  Romish  doctrine, 
in  its  application  to  the  canon  and  inspiration  of  Scripture  ? 

§  3.  Infallibility  of  the  Church. 
What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  upou  this  subject? 


12  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

1.  First   Fallacy. — What  is  the  first  fallacy  on  which   that 

system  is  founded? 
What  is  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  the  church  ? 
(1.)  How  is  that  doctrine  proved  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach 

concerning  the  church  as  the  "body  of  Christ,"  "family  of 

God,"  "temple  of  the  Holy  Grhost,"  "bride  of  Christ,"  etc.? 
(2.)  How,  from  the  designation  given  to  members  of  the  church, 

in  Scripture? 
(3.)  How,  from  the  fact  that  the  church  consists  of  those  who  are 

in  Christ? 
(4.)  How,  from  the  fact  that  it  consists  of  the  xXrjTOc'^- 
(5.)  How,  from  the  distinction  made  between  Israel  xa.ra  TTueu/Jta 

and  Israel  xava  aaf)xa  ? 
How  may  it  be  shown  that  Romanists  abandon  their  own  doctrine 

concerning  the  nature  of  the  church? 

2.  Second  Fallacy. — What  is  the  second  fallacy  on  which  the 

Romish  doctrine  of  an  infallible  church  rests  ? 
Who  were  the  apostles  ?    what  was  their  commission  ?  the  design 

of  their  office?  what  were  their  gifts?  and  their  credentials? 
How  show  that  Romish  prelates  do  not  claim  the  same   office, 

though  they  claim  the  same  authority? 
What  are  arguments  to  prove  that  the  apostleship  has  not  been 

perpetuated  ? 

3.  Third  Fallacy. — What  is  the  third  fallacy  of  the  Romish 

doctrine? 
How  prove  from  history  that  the  church  (in  the  Romish  sense 
of  the  word)  has  erred  ? 

IV.  PROTESTANTISM. 

What  is  the  rule  of  faith,  as  stated  in  the  Protestant  symbols? 

What  points  are  included  in  these  statements?  [I.  THE  PLE- 
NARY INSPIRATION;  II.  THE  COMPLETENESS; 
III.  THE  PERSPICUITY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES.*] 

How  do  Protestants  determine  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament? 

How  do  they  determine  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament? 

INSPIRATION. 

§  1.  Nature  of  Inspiration. 
On  what  docs  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  depend? 

*  Under  the  third  head,  is  included  the  Right  of  Private  Judgment. 


NATURE,    FORMS,    AND    SOURCES    OF    THEOLOGY.  13 

What  is  inspiration  ? 

How  does  it  differ  from  revelation  ? 

How  are  the  gifts  of  revelation  and  inspiration  rehited? 

How  do  inspiration  and  qnritnal  iHnmiuntlon  differ? 

What  three  elements  are  included  in  inspiration? 

How  may  it  be  shown   (1)  that  inspiration  does  not  make  the 

sacred   writers    machines,    or    destroy  their    self-control? 

(2)   that  it  does  not   render    theui  infallible   as   men  in 

opinion,  or  (3)  in  conduct? 

§  2.  IxspiRATioN  Plenary. 
In  what  sense  is  inspiration  plenary? 

1.  Plenary  Inspiration  Dented. — l.s^.  The  Theory  of  Partial 

Inqiiration. — (1.)  What  is  the  first  form  of  this  theory? 
What  are  the  arguments  to  prove  that  inspiration  extends  to  the 

words  of  Scripture  ? 
(2.)  What  is  its  second  form  ? 
(3.)  What  is  its  third  form? 
How  show  that  inspiration  is  not  confined  to  religious  truths,  but 

extends  to  the  facts  of  the  Bible? 
In  what  points  do  all  these  views  agree  ? 
2d.   The  Emotional  Theory. — What   is  the  theory  which    makes 

inspiration  the  result  of  excited  religious  feeling? 
What  are  the  different  forms  under  which  that  theory  is  held? 
(1.)  Rationalistic?     (2.)  Mystical?     (3.)  Philosophical? 
What  are  the  arguments  against  it?     [Four  points.] 
Zcl.    The    Pantheistic    Theory. — What    are    the    representations 

adopted  by  the  advocates  of  the  pantheistic  philosophy? 
In  what   three    points   do   the    emotional    and    the    pantheistic 

theories  of  inspiration  agree? 

2.  Plenary  Inspiration  Proved. — Xst.  The  New  Testament. — 

(1.)  What  is  the  argument  for  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  New  Testament  from  the  necessity  of  the  case  ? 

(2.)  What,  from  miracles? 

(3.)  How  show  that  Christ  promised  this  gift  to  the  apostles  ? 

(4.)  How  prove  that  the  apostles  claimed  it? 

Id.  The  Old  Testament.— {I.)  How  do  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  claim  inspiration  ? 


14  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

(2.)  How  do  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  prove  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Old? 

How  can  the  free  manner  in  which  the  Old  Testament  is  quoted 
in  the  New,  be  reconciled  with  this  doctrine  ? 

How  are  we  to  account  for  apparent  inconsistencies  between  dif- 
ferent portions  of  Scripture  ? 


BOOK  FIRST  :-TIIEOLOGY  PROPER. 


PART  I.   DEUS  EXISTENS. 


I.   GOD,   CONSIDERED  AS  ONE. 


I.  THE  BEING  OF  GOD. 

/.  ORiaiN  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 
What  are  the  diflferent  views  as  to  the  origin  of  our  idea  of  God? 

§  1.  Is  IT  Innate  ? 
What  is  meant  by  innate  knowledge  ? 

How  can  we  determine  whether  any  truth  is  innate  or  derived  ? 
In  what  sense  is  it  asserted  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  innate? 
How  can  the  assumption  that  it  is  innate  be  reconciled  with  the 

ignorance  of  some  tribes  ? 
How,  with  the  experience  of  the  deaf  and  dumb  ? 
How,  with  the  philosophical  denials  of  atheists  and  pantheists  ? 

§   2.    Is   IT   A  DEDUCTION   OP    REASON? 

What  is  the  theory  whicb  makes  the  idea  of  God  a  deduction  of 

reason  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  theory? 

§    3.     Is   IT   DUE   EXCLUSIVELY   TO    REVELATION  ? 

What  is  that  theory  which  refers  all  knowledge  of  God  to  a  super- 
natural revelation  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  theory? 


16  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

II.  PROOF  OF  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD. 
In  what  sense  does  the  being  of  God  admit  of  proof  ? 
How  may  we  show  that  the  argument  for  his  existence  does  not 

involve  a lictitlo  'prlnclini ? 
What  is  the  objection  founded  on  the  fact  that  the  knowledge  of 

God  is  innate  or  intuitive  ? 
How  is  that  objection  to  be  met? 
What  is  the  objection  to  the  proof  of  the  being  of  God  made  by 

those  who  regard  religious  consciousness  as  the  source  of  all 

theology  ? 

[I.]  THE   ONTOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 

What  is  meant  by  the  ontological  argument  ? 

1.  Des  Cartes. — In  what  form  was  that  argument  presented  by 

Bes  Cartes? 
What  is  the  objection  to  it  in  that  form  ? 

2.  Anselm. — In  what  form  was  it  presented  by  Anselm  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  form  ? 

3.  Clarke. — How  was  it  jiresented  by  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  ? 
What  is  the  objection  to  that  form  ? 

4.  Cousin. — How  is  it  presented  by  Cousin? 

What  value  is  to  be  attached  to  the  argument  in  any  of  its  forms  ? 

[II.]  THE  COSMOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  cosmological  argument?  and  why  is  it 

so  called  ? 
On  what  principle  is  this  argument  founded  ? 
What  is  a  cause  ? 

Whence  do  we  derive  the  idea  of  a  cause  ? 
l&t.  Premise. — What    authority   is    due   to   the    conviction    that 

every  effect  must  have  a  cause  ? 
2d.  Premise. — (1.)  How  can  we  prove  that  the  icorld  is  an  effect, 

from  the   impossibility  of  the  assumption    of  an    infinite 

series  of  contingent  events  ? 
(2.)  How,  from  the  recent  date  of  all  history? 
(3.)  How,  from  geology? 

2.  Ob.jections   to    this   Argument. — (1.)  What   is   Hume's 

objection  to  the  principle  ou  which  the  cosmological  argu- 
ment is  founded? 
What  is  the  answer  to  it  ? 


THE   BEING    OF   GOD.  "  17 

(2.)  What  is  Kaut's  objection  ? 

What  is  the  answer  to  it  ? 

(3.)  What  is  the  objection  to  the  arunnient  made  by  those  wlio 

admit  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded,  but   deny  the 

conclusion  drawn  from  it  ? 
How  is  that  objection  to  be  met? 

[III.]  THE  TELEOLOGICAL  ARGU3IENT. 

1.  Stated. — Why  is  the  teleological  argument  so  called? 
On  what  principle  is  that  argument  founded  ? 

1st  PrcmUc. — On  what  ground  does  the  assertion  rest  tliat  dcsifjn 
imj^Iies  intcUlgence  and  xcill? 

'Id  Premise. — (1.)  How  is  design  exhibited  in  the  mechanism  of 
the  heavens? 

(2.)  How,  in  the  structure  of  our  globe? 

(3.)  How,  in  the  vegetable  world  ? 

(4.)  How,  in  the  animal  world  ? 

(5.)  How,  in  the  nature  of  man  ? 

(G.)  How,  ill  the  adaptation  of  nature  to  the  wants  of  sensitive, 
organized  beings  ? 

How  does  all  this  prove  the  existence  of  an  extra-mundane,  per- 
sonal G  od  ? 

How  far  do  the  Scriptures  recognize  the  validity  of  this  argu- 
ment ? 

2.  Objections  to  this  Argument. — (1.)  What  is  the  objection 

of  materialists  to  this  argument  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  objection  founded  on  the  distinction  between  a 

mechanism  and  an  organism  ? 
(3.)  What  are  the  objections  of  Hume  and  Kant  ? 
(4.)  What  is  the  objection  drawn  from  the  operation  of  instinct? 
(5.)  What,  from  abnormal  productions  ? 

[IV.]  THE  MORAL  ARGUMENT. 

In  what  form    does    Kant   present  the  moral  argument  for  the 

being  of  God  ? 
What  is  the  common  form  of  the  argument  ? 

How  may  the  existence  of  God  be  inferred  from  our  sense  of  guilt? 
What  dues  consciousness  teach  of  the  certainty,  the  authority,  and 

the  independence  of  our  moral  judgments  ?  and  what,  of  the 

representative  character  of  conscience  ? 
What  is  the  argument  from  our  religious  nature  ? 


18  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

[V.]  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  CONSENT. 

What  is  the  argument  from  common  consent  ? 

III.  SYSTEMS  OPPOSED  TO  THEISM. 

What  are  two  comprehensive  anti-theistic  doctrines  ? 

[I.]  POLYTHEISM. 
What  is  polytheism  ? 

What  was  the  popuhir  polytheism  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  ? 
What,  the  philosophical  theories  of  the  educated  classes  ? 

[II.]  ATHEISM. 
What  is  atheism  ? 

How  is  the  answer  to  that  question  to  be  determined  ? 
On  what  ground  do   materialists   and   pantheists  repudiate  the 

name  of  atheists  ? 
How  may  the  propriety  of  restricting  the  meaning  of  the  word 

"theism"  to  the    doctrine  of  a   personal,  extra-mundane 

God  be  sustained  ? 

§  1.  Hylozoism. 
What  is  hylozoism  ? 

What  is  the  materialistic  form  of  the  doctrine  ? 
What  is  its  other  and  higher  form  ? 
What  principles  of  this  theory  were  held  by  many  Stoics  ? 

§  2.  Materialism. 
1.  Defined. — What  is  materialism? 
What  is  this  doctrine,  as  held  by  some  theists? 
Who  were  the  leading  materialists  of  the  French  school  ? 
What  were  their  doctrines  as  to  the  origin  of  our  ideas  ?  as  to  the 

nature  of  the  world  and  God?  as  to  immortality  and  virtue  ? 
Who  was  Comte? 

What  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  Positive  Philosophy  ? 
What  is  causation,  according  to  his  doctrine? 
What  the  laws  of  nature  ? 
How  are  these  laws  determined  ? 
According  to  this  theory,  through  what  three  stages  docs  the  mind 

pass,  and  has  mankind  passed,  in  its  investigations? 
How  is  this  system  applied  to  the  sciences  ?  and  to  social  life  ? 


THE   NATURE   OF   GOD.  19 

What  did  Comte  substitute  for  God,  as  the  object  of  worship? 

How  does  he  provide  for  a  universal  religion? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  IIow  may  the  assumptions  on  which  Comte 

founds  his  theory  be  disproved? 
(2.)  How  does  this  doctrine  contradict  intuitive  truths? 
How,  as  to  liberty  of  conscience  and  moral  judgments? 
How  does  it  destroy  all  virtue  ? 

§  3.  Pantheism. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  the  popular  definition  of  pantheism? 
Why  do  pantheists  object  to  that  definition  ? 

What  are  the  principles  common  to  all  systems  of  pantheism,  as 
to  dualism?  substance?  nature  of  the  absolute,  infinite 
being  ?  and  its  relation  to  the  world  ? 

What  does  pantheism  teach  us  as  to  the  personality  of  God? 

As  to  the  nature  of  man  ?  and  a  future  state  ? 

As  to  liberty  ?  and  sin  ? 

2.  Refuted. — How  is  pantheism  to  be  refuted? 

3.  History  of  the  Theory. — (1.)  What  was  and  is  the  pantheism 

oi  the  East? 
(2.)  What,  of  the  Greeks? 
(3.)  What,  of  the  Middle  Ages? 
(4.)  What,  oi modern  times? 


11.  THE  NATURE  OF  GOD. 

I.  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD. 
[I.]   CAN  GOD  BE  KNOWN? 

What  are  the  different  answers  given  to  the  question.  Can  God  be 
known  ? 

§  1.  First  Extreme. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  modern  transcendentalists 

on  this  subject?  * 

How,  according  to  Schelling,  is  this  knowledge  attained  ? 
How,  according  to  Hegel  ? 
How,  according  to  Cousin  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  Sir  William   Hamilton's  first  argu- 

ment to  prove  this  claim  unfounded? 


20  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

(2.)  How  is  it  refuted  by  the  assumption  wliich  it  involTes  of  the 

nature  of  man  ? 
(3.)  How,  by  the  definition  given  of  the  absolute  and  the  infinite  ? 

§  2.  Second  Extreme. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  inference  which  Hamilton  and  Mansel 

draw  from  these  premises  ? 
How    do   they   reconcile   this    assumed    ignorance   of  God   with 
theism  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  does  Hamilton's  theory  involve  the  denial 

of  the  veracity  of  consciousness  ? 
(2.)  How  does  it  place  our  moral  and  rational  natures  in  conflict? 
(3.)  How  does  it  destroy  the  possibility  of  all  knowledge? 
(4.)  How  does  it  destroy  the  possibility  of  faith  ? 
(5.)  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  illogical? 

What  do  Hamilton  and  Mansel  mean  by  regulative  knowledge  ? 
How  may  their  view  on  that  subject  be  refuted? 
In  what  different  senses  do  they  use  the  word  "  knowledge?" 
What  is  the  true  sense  of  the  word  ? 

§  3.  The  true  Answer. 
In  what  sense  is  God  mconceivahle  ? 
In  what  sense,  mcomprehensihle? 
In  what  sense,  knowahle  ? 
What  is  meant  by  partial  knowledge  ? 

[II.]  HOW  MAY  GOD  BE  KNOWN? 

1.  Method. — How  do  we  attain  our  knowledge  of  God? 

2.  Proof. — (1.)  From  the  fact  that  we  were  created  in  the  image 

of  God,  what  is  the  argument  to  prove  that  we  attain  to  the 

knowledge  of  God  by  referring  to  him  the  perfections  of 

our  own  nature? 
(2.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  fact  that  all  men  do  and  must 

conceive  of  God? 
(3.)  What  is  the  argument  from  our  moral  nature? 
(4.)  What,  from  our  religious  nature? 

(5.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  atheism  is  the  only  alternative? 
(6.)  What,  from  the  works  of  nature? 
(7.)  What,  from  the  Word  of  God? 
(8.)  What,  from  the  manifestation  of  God  in  Christ? 


THE  ATTRIBUTES   OF   COD.  21 

//.  THE  DEFmiTIOy  OF  GOD. 
Can  God  be  defined? 

What  are  the  different  kinds  of  definition?  and  which  is  applica- 
ble to  our  idea  of  God  ? 
"What  are  the  more  common  theological  definitions  of  God? 


II).  THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

[I.]  WHAT  IS  AN  ATTRIBUTE? 

When  we  speak  of  an  ens  or  being,  in  what  sense  is  the  word 

used  ? 
How  do  we  get  the  idea  of  substance  ? 
What  are  the  attributes  of  an  essence? 
How  do  attributes  differ  from  predicates,  properties,  and  accidents? 

[II.]  HOW  DO  THE  ATTRIBUTES  DIFFER? 
§  1.  Extreme  Opinions. 
What  are  the  two  extremes  to  be  avoided,  in  stating  the  relation 
of  God's  attributes  to  his  essence  ? 

1.  Realism. — What  was  the  Realistic  doctrine  on  this  point? 

2.  Nominalism. — What  the  Nominalistic? 

To  what  extreme  do  the  older  theologians  tend  ? 
What  are  their  statements  as  to  the  simplicity  of  God  ? 
What,  as  to  the  relation  of  God's  attributes  to  one  another? 
What  did  they  mean,  when  they  said  that  the  attributes  differ 
only  ratione? 

§  2.  The  True  View. 
What  is  meant,  when  the  attributes  are  said  to  differ  virhtalitcrf 
What  is  Schleiermacher's  doctrine  on  this  subject? 
What  is  the  true  principle  which  should  regulate  our  thoughts 
and  language  here? 

[III.]   CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  ATTRIBUTES. 

1.  Object. — What  is  the  object  of  the  classification  of  the  divine 
attributes  ? 
4 


'L'L  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

2.  Methods. — (1.)  What  is  the  method  of  classification  derived 

from  our  idea  of  an  infinite  and  absolute  being  ? 
(2.)  What  principle  of  classification  is  derived  from  the  diffierent 

methods  by  which  we  form  our  idea  of  God?     (^Caasation^ 

Negation,  and  Eminence.') 
What  are  the  two  classes  into  which  this  principle  divides  the 

divine  attributes  ?  and  Avhat  terms  are  used  to  designate 

those  classes? 
(3.)  What  method  is  derived  from  the  constitution  of  our  own 

nature  ? 
(4.)  What,   from  the   nature  of  the    attributes   themselves,   as 

natural  and  moral? 
(5.)   What  is  the  method  suggested  in  the  definition  of  God  given 

in  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism  ? 

/.  SPIRITUALITY  OF  GOD. 

1.  The  Declarations  of  Scripture. — What  is  the  principle 

which    should    regulate    our   interpretation    of  Scripture 

language  ? 
What  is  the  meaning  and  usage  of  the  words  tX^^  and  Tzvsu/jial 
In  what  sense  are  they  used,  when  applied  to  the  soul  and  to  God? 

2.  The  Teachings  of  Consciousness. — How  does   conscious- 

ness teach  that  our  own  soul  or  spirit  is  a  substance^ 
How,  that  it  is  an  mdividual  substance? 
What  does  it  teach  as  to  the  powers  of  the  soul  ? 
What,  as  to  its  unity  and  simplicity? 
What,  as  to  its  moral  nature? 
What,  as  to  its  personality  ? 

3.  The  Conclusion. — In  what  sense,  then,  is  God  a  Spirit? 

When  it  is  said,  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  what  is  affirmed?  and 
what  denied? 

//.   INFINITUDE  OF  GOD. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  meant  by  the  infinite? 

How  does  it  diff"er  fiom  the  indefinite ? 

What  is  intended,  wlien  we  say  that  God  is  an  infinite  being? 

How  far  is  our  notion  of  the  infinite  negative  ?  and  how  far  posi- 
tive ? 

In  what  sense  do  philosophers  say  that  an  infinite  being  includes 
all  beintr? 


THE  ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD.  23 

In  what  sense  have  theologians  asserted  the  same  thing? 

How  may  it  be  shown  that  infinite  being  does  not  include  all 
being? 

WKat  is  included  in  the  infinitude  of  God's  being? 

What  is  meant  by  the  immensity  and  omnipresence  of  God?  and 
how  do  they  diflFer? 

In  what  relation  do  bodies,  created  spirits,  and  God,  respectively 
stand  to  space? 

What  are  the  wrong  views  held  of  God's  omnipresence? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  How  do  the  Scriptures  teach  God's  omni- 
presence ? 

(2.)  How  does  the  evidence  of  mind  everywhere  in  nature 
prove  it? 

(3.)  How  is  this  attribute  involved  in  our  religious  apprehension 
of  God? 

///.  ETERNITY  OF  GOD. 

What  is  eternity? 

What  is  time? 

In  what  relation  does  time  stand  to  eternity  ? 

(1.)  In  what  respect  are  all  things  equally  present  with  God? 

If  all  things  are  equally  present  with  God,  how  is  it  that  they  do 

not  co-exist  ? 
(2.)  What  do  the  modern  philosophers  teach  as  to  the  nature  (ivf 

eternity  and  its  relation  to  time  ? 
(3.)  How  do  the  Scriptures  present  this  subject? 

IV.  nniUTABILITY  OF  GOD. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  meant  by  the  immutability  of  God? 
In  what  sense  is  God  immutable  in  his  being  and  perfections? 
In  what  sense,  in  his  plans  and  purposes? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  What  are  the  Scripture  proofs  of  this  doctrine? 
(2.)  How  does  it  follow  from  the  perfection  of  God? 

3.  Philosophic    Objection.— W^hat    is    the    philosophic    and 

scholastic  mode  of  presenting  this  doctrine? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  mode  of  representation? 
What  is  the  argument  against  the  personality  of  God  founded  on 

these  absolute  attributes  (eternity  and  immutability)? 


24  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

F.  OMNISCIENCE  OF  GOD, 
[L]  KNOWLEDGE. 
§  1.  Mode  of  the  Divine  Knowledge. 
What  is  knowledge? 
Can  God  know? 

By  whom  is  this  expressly  denied?  and  by  whom,  virtually? 
What  is  Sehleiermacher's  doctrine  as  to  God's  knowing? 
What  do  those  mean,  who  say  that  the  world  is  included  in  the- 

consciousness  of  God  ? 
What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  on  this  subject? 
What  are  the  limitations  and  imperfections  which  beloEg  to  man's 

mode  of  knowledge? 
How  are  these  limitations  removed  from  the  mode  in  which  God 
knows? 

§  2.  Objects  of  the  Divine  Knowledge. 
What  are  the  objects  of  God's  knowledge? 
(1.)  What   is   the    distinction   between    scientia   necessaria   and 

scientia  lihera  ? 
(2.)  What,  between  the  knowledge  of  vision  and  the  knowledge 

of  simple  intelligence  ? 
(3.)  What  is  scientia  media? 
By  whom,  and  for  what  purpose,  was  this  distinction  introduced 

into  theology? 
"What  arguments  are  used  iu  support  of  it? 
What  are  the  arguments  against  it  ? 
How  prove  that  the  free  acts  of  men  are  foreknown  ? 
On  what  ground  do  Socinians  and  others  deny  the  knowledge  of 

free  acts? 
How  may  foreknowledge  be  reconciled  with  freedom  in  the  agent  ? 

[II.]  WISDOM. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  meant  by  wisdom  ? 

2.  Proved. — How  is  the  wisdom  of  God  revealed? 

YL   WILL  OF  GOD. 

1.  Defined. — What  are  different  senses  of  the  word  "  will  ?" 
In  what  sense  is  it  used  by  theologians,  when  they  say  that  the 
object  of  the  will  is  good  ? 


THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD.  25 

In  what  sense  does  God  will  himself? 

What  is  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  ? 

In  what  senses  is  the  will  of  God  free  ? 

What  is  the  difference  between  spontaneity  and  liberty? 

2.  Distinctions. 

1st.  Ad7nissible. — (1.)  What  is  the  distinction  between  the  decre- 
tive and  preceptive  will  of  God  ? 

(2.)  What,  between  the  will  eudokias  and  cuai'estias,  sigiii  and 
hene-placiti,  secret  and  revealed  ? 

2d.  Inadmissible. — In  what  sense  do  Augustiuians  admit  a  dis- 
tinction between  (1.)  the  antecedent  and  conseciuent? 
(2.)  the  absolute  and  conditional  ?  (3.)  the  effective  and 
inefficient  will  of  God  ? 

In  what  sense  do  Lutherans  and  Arminians  understand  these 
distinctions  ? 

What  are  the  objections  to  their  view  ? 

What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  "  de^o)"  in  Scripture? 

3.  The  Rule  of  Righteousness. — What  are  the  different  views 

as  to  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  ? 
In  what  sense  is  the  will  of  God  that  ground  ? 

VIL  OMNIPOTENCE  OF  GOD. 

1.  Defined. — Whence  do  we  get  the  idea  of  power? 
What  are  limits  of  direct  power  in  man  ? 

How  do  we  get  the  idea  of  omnipotence? 
What  is  the  ordinary  definition  of  God's  omnipotence  ? 
Within  what  limitations  do  we  say  that  God  can  do  whatever  he 
wills  ? 

2.  Distinctions. — What  is  the   ordinary   distinction   between 

potentia  absoluta  and  potentia  ordinata  ? 
On  what  grounds  do  the  moderns  reject  that  distinction  ? 
What  did  the  Schoolmen  and  Des  Cartes  mean  by  absolute  power  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  doctrine  ? 
What  is  the  doctrine  which  denies  the  distinction  between  power 

and  efficiency?  between  the  actual  and  the  possible? 
According  to  this  view,  what  is  God's  omnipotence  ? 
What  is  Schleiermacher's  idea  of  omnipotence  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it? 


lib  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

VIII.  HOLINESS  OF  GOD. 

What  is  holiness  in  God  ? 

What  is  a  frequent  sense  of  r;i"ip,  as  applied  to  God? 

On  what  grounds   do  transcendentalists  deny  moral  attributes  to 

God? 
How  may  the  insufficiency  of  these  grounds  be  shown  ? 
How  does  Schleiermacher  define  holiness  in  God  ? 
What  is  the  objection  to  that  definition  ? 

IX.  JUSTICE  OF  GOD. 

1.  Definition. — What  is  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the 

words  dcxacoaovTj^  dtxaco^t 
What  is  the  general  sense  in  which  God  is  said  to  be  just,  or 

righteous  ? 
What  is  meant  by  rectoral  justice  ? 
What,  by  God's  justice  as  a  judge  ? 
What,  by  vindicatory  justice  ? 

2.  Relation  between  Divine  Justice  and  the  Punishment 

OF  Sin. — What  is  the  relation  of  justice  to  the  punishment 

of  sin  ? 
Ist.  Erroneous    Vmcs. — What  are  the  difi"erent  answers  given  to 

the  question.  Why  is  sin  punished  ? 
(1.)  How  prove  that  the  reformation  of  the  offender  is  not  the  pri- 
mary nor  the  only  legitimate  ground  of  punishment  ? 
(2.)  How  prove  that  the  prevention  of  crime  is  not  the  primary 

nor  the  only  ground  of  punishment  ? 
What  is  the  view  of  the  nature  of  justice  on  which  that  doctrine 

is  founded  ? 
(3.)  How  prove  that  justice  is  not  a  mere  form  of  benevolence  ? 
2d.  The  True  View. — How  prove  that  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin 

is  the  primary  ground  of  its  punishment?  and  that  justice 

is  a  distinct  form  of  moral  excellence  ? 
(1.)  What  is  the  argument  from  consciousness  on  this  subject? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  common  sentiments  of  mankind? 
(3.)   What,  from  the  distinction  in  all  languages  between  words 

signifying  justice,  and  others  signifying  benevolence? 
(4.)  What,  from  the  sacrifices  and  expiatory  rites  of  all  nations  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  the  exercises  of  men  under  conviction  of  sin  ? 
(6.)  What,  from  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture  ? 


THE   ATTRIBUTES    OP   GOD.  27 

(7.)  What,  from  the  doctrine  of  the  nature  and  necessity  of  a  satis- 

foction  for  sin? 
(8.)  What,  from  the  doctrine  of  justification? 
(9.)  What,  from  the  holiness  of  God  ? 

X.    GOODNESS  OF  GOD. 

1.  Defined. — What  attributes  are  included   under   the  general 

idea  of  goodness  ? 
What  is  benevolence  ? 
What  is  love  ? 
What  is  mercy? 
What  is  grace  ? 
In  what  sense  can  feelings  be  ascribed  to  C  od  ? 

2.  Proved. — What  is  the  evidence  of  God's  goodness,  or  that  he 

is  love? 

3.  Objection  Refuted.— The  Existence  of  Evil.— What  is 

evil? 
(1.)  What  is  the  theory  which  denies  that  God  can  prevent  moral 

evil  in  a  moral  system  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it? 
(2.)  What  is  the  theory  which  represents  sin  as  the  necessary 

means  of  the  greatest  good  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it? 
(3.)  What  is  the  scholastic  mode  of  accounting  for  the  existence 

of  sin  under  the  government  of  God  ? 

XL  TRUTH  OF  GOD. 

What  is  truth  ? 

What  is  meant  by  the  veracity  of  God? 
What,  by  his  fidelity  ? 

How  show  that  the  truth  of  God  is  the  foundation   of  all  know- 
ledge ? 

XIL  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  GOD. 

What  is  meant  by  the  sovereignty  of  God  ? 
On  what  is  his  sovereignty  founded? 
What  is  the  proof  of  God's  sovereignty  ? 


28  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


II.  GOD,  CONSIDERED  AS  TRIUNE. 


I.  THE  TRINITY. 

How  far  is  tlie  doctrine  of  the  trinity  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures  ? 
What  is  the  fiindoo  trinity  ? 
What  was  the  trinity  of  Plato  ? 

/.  THE  BIBLICAL  STATEMENT. 
What  are  the  essential  elements  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  ? 

1.  How  do  the  Scriptures  teach  there  is  but  one  divine  heing? 

2.  How  do  they  teach  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are  ALIKE 

DIVINE? 

3.  How  is  it  to  be  proved   that   these  terms  do  not  express  a 

modal,  but  a  Personal  Trinity  ? 

4.  In  what  relation  does  the  Son  stand  to  the  Father  ?  and  the 

Spirit  to  the  Father  and  the  Son? 

5.  What  are  the  works  peculiar  to  each? 

//.  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  STATEMENT. 
[I.]  HISTORY  OF  ERROR. 

How  is  the  docrine  of  the  trinity  connected  with  the  personal 
experience  of  believers? 

What  led  to  the  more  precise  and  scientific  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine ? 

1.  Gnosticism. — What  were  the  erroneous  explanations  of  the 

trinity  derived  from  Gnosticism? 

2.  Platonism. — What  was  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the    Xoyo(^ 

ivdcaderoc;  and  the  ^.oyo^  npoipoptxoQt 
How  was  this  applied  to  the  explanation  of  this  doctrine  ? 

3.  Origen. — What  was  Origen's  doctrine  of  the  trinity? 

4.  Arianism. — How  did  his  doctrine  give  rise  to  Arianism? 

[II.]  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE. 

What  was  the  state  of  the  church,  when  the  Council  of  Nice  was 

convened? 
For  what  purpose  was  that  council  called? 


THE   TRINITY.  29 

What  tlircc  parties  were  represented  in  it  ? 

(1.)  Wliat  was  tlie  An'an  doctrine,  concerning  the  Son  and  the 

Spirit? 
(2.)  What  was  the  Semi- An'an  doctrine? 
(3.)  What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Ilomoouslans? 
What  is  the  Nicene    Creed  ?   and    how  was  it  modified  at   the 

Council  of  Constantinople  ? 

[III.]   THE  CHURCH  DOCTRINE. 

§  1.  Three  Persons. 
What  is  the  first  point  decided  in  the  Nicene  Creed  ? 
What  is  meant  by  "  person  ?" 

What  is  the  meaning  and  use  of  the  word  Ttfjoacozou  ? 
What,  of  byioazaaci^'i 
What,  of  substantia  and  subslUentia? 
What,  of  persona  ? 

§  2.  One  Essence. 
What  are  the  Greek  words  for  "  essence  "? 
How  was  the  community  of  essence  in  the  trinity  expressed  ? 
What  are  the  two  senses  of  the  word  b/jLoumo^  ? 
In  which  of  these  senses  was  it  used  by  the  church  ? 
On  what  grounds  was  the  use  of  that  word  objected  to  ? 

§  .3.  Relation  of  the  Persons. 

1.  Subordination. — In  what  sense  was  the  Son  said  to  be  "  of 

the  Father  ?" 
In  what  sense  was  the  Father  represented  as  being  the  fountain, 

principle  and  cause  of  the  other  persons  ? 
In  what  sense  was  he  said  to  be  greater  than  the  Son  ? 
How  far  did  the  reformers  dissent  from  tliis  representation  ? 
In  what  sense  did  they  teach  that  the  Son  is  auzodsoc;! 

2.  Hypostatic    Character. — What  is   meant  by  the   eternal 

generation  of  the  Son  ? 
What  is  meant  by  the  procession  of  the  Spirit  ? 
How  are  the  persons    of  the  trinity  distinguished  by  personal 

properties  ? 

3.  Interexistence. — What  is  meant  by  -zcycooTjac::,  as  express- 

ing the  relation  of  the  persons  of  the  trinity  to  each  other  ? 
5 


30  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

4.  Concurrence  of  Action. — How  do  the  persons  of  the  trinity 

concur  in  works  ad  extra  ? 

5.  Economic  Diversity. — ^How  do  they  sevei'ally  bear  special 

relation  to  particular  operations  in  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion ? 
What  is  what  is  called  the  Athanasian  Creed  ? 

[lY.]  ETERNAL  GENERATION.— SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  Stated. — "What  are  the  different  opinions  on  this  subject? 
What  is  the  church  doctrine  ? 

2.  Proved, — (1.)  What  argument  for  the  eternal  generation  of 

the  Son  is  derived  from  the  meaning  of  the  terms,  Father, 

Son,  and  Spirit  ? 
(2.)  What  argument  from  the  fact  that  these  terms  are  actually 

applied  to  the  persons  of  the  trinity  ? 
(3.)    What    Scripture   proofs   of  this    doctrine?    Rom.  i.  3,  4. 

John  i.  14,  18;  v.  17—25;  x.  30,  seqq.     Heb.  oh.  1. 
(4.)  What  argument  from  the  use  of  the  terms  p.ovoyzvric,  and  l^iozl 
What  is  the  church  explanation  of  the  relation  indicated  by  the 

terms  Father  and  Son  ? 
What  are  the  scriptural  grounds  on  which  that  explanation  rests  ? 
What  are  the  two  interpretations  of  which  John  iii.  16,  admits  ? 
(5.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  use  of  synonymous  expreS' 

sions  ? 

3.  Objections. — (1.)  What  is  the   objection  to   this   doctrine 

founded  on  the  assumption  that  if  Christ  is  Son  of  God,  he 

is  not  truly  God  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  objection  founded  on  Psalm  ii.  7  ?  and  Acts  xiii, 

32,  33  ? 
What,  on  Luke  i.  35  ? 
What,  from  passages  in  which  the  Son  is  said  to  be  "  subject  to 

the  Father,"  "  ignorant,"  etc.? 

[V.]   PROCESSION  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 

1.  Stated. — What   is   the  church   doctrine   as   to   the  relation 

of  the  Spirit  to  the  other  persons  of  the  trinity  ? 

2.  Proved. — What  are  the  scriptural  grounds  of  that  doctrine? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Spirit  bears  the  game  relation  to 

the  Son,  that  he  does  to  the  Father  ? 


31 


III.   THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  STATEMENT. 
§  1.  Illustrative  Statements. 

(1.)  What  was  the  mode  of  illustrating  this  subject  among  the 

Fathers  ? 
(2.)  What,  among  the  Sehoolmeu  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  illustration  borrowed  from  the  mode  in  which 

self-eonsciousuess  developes  itself  in  us  '( 

§  2.  Sabellian  and  Panthelstic  Statements. 
What  are  Sabellian  statements  of  the  doetrine  of  the  Trinity? 
What,  Pantheistic? 


III.    THE   SECOND   AND    THIRD  PERSONS 

OF  THE  GODHEAD,  CONSIDERED 

SEPARATELY. 


I.   CHRIST. 

FIRST.    THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

/.  PROOF  FROM  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Genesis. — What  is  the  argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ  from 

the  promise  made  to  Adam  ? 
What,  from  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  ? 
What,  from  the  intimations  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  trinity 

made  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  from  what  is  there  taught 

of  the  manifested  Jehovah  ? 
What  proof,   from  what  is  said  of  the   angel   who  appeared   to 

Hagar?  xvi.  7- 
What,  from  the  appearance  to  Abraham,  before  the  destruction  of 

Sodom?  xviii.  10,     xix.  24.     xxi.  17. 
What,  from  the  account  of  the  offering  of  Isaac?  xxii.  1,  Ifi. 
What,  from  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to  Jacob?  in  Haran? 

xxxi.  11,  13. 
What,  from  the  appearance  of  the  angel  who  wrestled  with  Jacob  ? 

xxxiL  24,  30.     Cf,  Hos.  xii.  3,  4. 


32  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

Exodus. — What  proof  from  the  appearance  to  Moses  in  the 
burning  bush  ?  iii.  2,  6. 

What,  from  the  guiding  of  the  Israelites?  xiv.  19.  xxiii.  20,  21. 
xxxii.  34.     xxxiii.  14.    Cf.  Isa.  Ixiii.  9. 

Joshua. — What  proof  from  the  appearance  to  Joshua?  v.  13. 
vi.  2. 

Judges. — What  proof  from  the  appearance  to  Manoah?  xiii.  3,  23. 

What,  from  the  appearance  to  Gideon?  vi.  11,  14,  15. 

[What  are  the  three  principles  on  which  these  passages  have  been 
explained?  and  what  are  the  reasons  for  these  prin- 
ciples ?] 

Psalms. — What  proofs  from  Psalms  ii  ?  xxii  ?  xlv  ?  Ixxii  ?  ex  ? 

Isaiah. — What  from  Isaiah  iv.  2?   vi?    vii.  viii.  ix?  xi?  xl. 
and  Ixvi  ? 

MiCAH. — What,  from  Micah  v.  1 — 5  ? 

Jeremiah. — What,  from  Jeremiah  xxiii?  xxxiii.  14 — 18? 

Joel.— What,  from  Joel  ii.  23  ? 

Zechariah. — What,  from  Zechariah  i. — vi  ?  ix. — xii  ? 

Daniel.— What,  from  Daniel  ii.  44?  vii.  9—14?   ix.  24—27? 

Malachi. — What,  from  Malachi  iii.  1 — 4? 

//.  PROOF  FROM  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

1.  Divine  Titles. — What  is  the  argument  for  Christ's  divinity 

from  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  in  the  New  Testament 
he  is  called  "Lord'^?  Rev.  iv.  4.  1  Cor.  i.  2.  Cf.  1  Sam. 
ii.  2.     Psalms  xxxiii.  12.     Exod.  xv.  11. 

What,  from  the  kind  of  lordship  attributed  to  him  ?  Acts  x.  36. 
Rom.  xiv.  9.  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  1  Cor.  xv.  47.  Phil.  ii.  11. 
1  Tim.  vi.  15. 

What,  from  the  application  to  Christ  of  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  "Lord"  means  Jehovah?  Mai.  iii.  1, 
and  Luke  i.  7G.  Joel  ii.  32,  and  Rom.  x.  13.  Isa.  xxviii.  16, 
and  Rom.  x.  11.     Psalm  xlv.  6,  7,  and  Heb.  i.  8. 

2.  Divine  Worship. — What  is  the  argument  from  the  relation 

in  which  believers  are  said  to  stand  to  Christ  ? 
In  what  passages  ^is  he  represented  as  the   object  of  supreme 

love? 
In  what  passages  are  believers  said  to  regard  him  as  their  moral 

ruler  ? 
In  what  passages  is  he  represented  as  the  ground  of  confidence  and 

the  portion  of  the  soul  ? 


CHRIST.  33 

3.  Divine  ATTiUBrrKs. — TTow  does  riirist  present  liimself  to 

us  as  God  by  the  uutlioiity  which  he  claims  as  tcaclicr  '( 
John  xiv.  G;  x.  30.  Matt.  xxiv.  35;  v.  18,  22,  20,  28, 
32,  39,  44.     Gal.  i.  12. 

How  does  Christ  present  himself  as  God  by  the  control  which  he 
claims  over  all  creatures?  Matt.  xiii.  41.  And  over  the 
course  of  events?  and  over  the  temporal  and  eternal  des- 
tiny of  individuals?  xMatt.  xvi.  27;  xiii.  30;  xxv.  34,  41; 
X.  37. 

How  do  the  promises  of  Christ  prove  him  to  be  God?  Forgivnitaa. 
Luke  vii.  48.  Gift  of  Hoi i/  Spirit.  Acts  2.  John  xvi.  7. 
Eph.  iv.  7.  Answer  to  Prai/n-.  John  xvi.  23.  IMatt. 
xxviii.  20  ;  xviii.  20.  Etrrnal  Life.  John  vi.  54.  2  Tim. 
iv.  8.     Matt.  xi.  28.     John  xiv.  2.     Gal.  vi.  18. 

4.  Divine  Acts. — How  does  the  control  over  the  external  world 

exercised  by  Christ  prove  him  to  be  God?  Acts  iii.  12. 
John  xiv.  12;  x.  18. 


John. — Why  is  the  second  person  of  the  trinity  called  the 
Logos  ? 

Why  does  John  only  of  the  apostles  use  that  term  ? 

What  is  taught  concerning  the  Logos  in  John  i.  1 — 14? 

What,  in  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus? 

What,  in  chaps,  v.  IG?  vi?  vii?  x?   xi  ?  xiv. — xvi?    xvii  ? 

How  does  the  language  of  Thomas  (xx.  28,)  prove  Christ's  di- 
vinity ? 

Epistles  of  John. — What  evidence  of  the  deity  of  Christ  is 
given  in  John's  Epistles?  1  John  i.  1,  23?  iv.  2,  3,  15? 
V.12. 

Revelation. — What  proof  of  Christ's  divinity  from  the  book  of 
Revelation?  i.  8,  11,  13,  18?  ii.  1— iii.  22?  v.  6—14? 
xvii.  14. 

Romans. — What  proof  from  the  epistle  to  the  Romans?  ix.  5. 

1  Corinthians.— i.  4?  ix.  30,  31  ?  viii.  6?  x.  5?  xv.  22?  xlvi.  47  ? 

xvi.  22?  xvi.  23  ? 

2  Corinthians —iii.  15—17?  iv.  4— G?  v.  G?  v.  10?  v.  14? 
Galatians.— i.  1?  ii.  15,  16?  ii.  20?  ii.  6—8?  iii.  26,  28,  29? 

v.  25,  vi.  4?  vi.  18. 
Ephesians.— i.  7  ?  i.  21—23?  i.  23,  iv.  10  ?  ii.  1  ?  iii.  9  ?  iv.  7  ? 

i.  22,  iv.  16,  v.  23?  vi.  24? 
PniLiPPiANS. — i.  21,  22?  ii.  6 — 11  ? 


34  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

CoLOSSiANS. — i.  15 — 18  ?     What   is    meant   by    TiXfjpcofxa  tyji^ 
decor/jTO(:  in  ii.  9  ?  iii.  2  ? 

1  Thessalontans.— ii.  19?  iii.  11,  12?  iv.  18? 

2  Thessalonians.— i.  1?  i.  7—9? 

1  Timothy.— i.  1?  i.  12?  ii.  3?  iii.  IG? 

Titus.— i.  3?  ii.  13? 

Hebrews.— i.  2?  i.  6?  i.  8?  i.  10?  ii.  8?  ii.  9,  U?  iii.  3,  6? 

iv.  14?  vii.  25?  vii.  27?  viii.  1—4?  x.  26?  xiii.  8? 
James. — ii.  1  ? 

1  Peter.— i.  8,  9,  11?  ii.  4—8?  iii.  18,  22? 

2  PETER.—i.  1?  i.  8?  i.  11?  i.  16?  ii.  20?  iii.  18? 


II.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

/.  THE  DOCTRINE. 

§  1.  Usage  op  Terms. 
What  are  the  signification  and  usage  of  the  words  n^'i  and  Tcveuual 
Why  is  the  third  person  of  the  trinity  called  Spirit  ? 
Why  called  the  Spirit  of  God? 
Why  called  the  Spirit  of  truth,  of  holiness,  etc.? 
How  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  '•'  Spirit  of  God"  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  be  determined  ? 

§  2.  The  Spirit's  Personality. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  included  in  personality? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  for  the  personality  of 

the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  use  of  the  personal  pronoun  ? 
In  what  passages  are  the  pronouns  so  used  as  to  prove  the  Holy 

Spirit  to  be  a  person?     Acts  xiii.  2.     John  xv.  26;  xvi. 

13,  14. 
(2.)  What  argument  from  the  formula  of  baptism?  (Matt,  xxviii. 

19,)  and  the  apostolic  benediction  ?     (2  Cor.  xiii.  14.) 
(3.)  What  argument  from  the  relation  in  which  believers  stand 

to  the  Spirit  ? 
(4.)  What  argument  from  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  us  ? 
(5.)  What  argument  from  the  ascription  to  him  of  intelligence 

and  will  ? 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT,  35 

(6.)  What  argument  from  the  manifestations  of  the  Spirit  ? 
(7.)  What  argument  from  the  acts  attributed  to  him  ? 
(8.)  What  argument  from  the  faith  of  the  church  ? 

§  3.   The  Spirit's  Divinity. 

(1.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that   divine  titles  are  given  to  the 

Spirit  ? 
(2.)  Divine  attributes  ? 
(3.)  Divine  loorJcs  ? 
(4.)  Divine  xcorship  ? 

§  4.  The  Spirit's  Offices. 

(1.)  What  is  the  office  of  the  Spirit  in  the  external  world  ? 
In  what  sense  is  he  said  to  be  "  life-giving"? 
(2.)  What  is  his  office  in  the  intellectual  world  ? 
(3.)  What  is  his  office  in  the  sjjiritual  world  ?  as  to  the  revelation 
of  truth  ?  and  as  to  the  work  of  redemption  ? 

//.  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 

1.  Ante-Nicene. — What  was  the   faith  of  the   church   on   this 

subject,  during  the  ante-Nicene  period  ? 
Why  did  some  of  the  fathers  identify  the  Word  and  the  Spirit  ? 
Who  among  them  regarded  the  Spirit  as  a  creature  ? 

2.  NiCENE. — What  were  the  doctrines  of  the  Nicene  Council  ? 

of  the  Council  at  Constantinople  ?  and  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed? 

3.  Post  Nicene. — What  has  been  the  history  of  the  doctrine 

since  that  period,  in  the  church  ? 

4.  Speculative. — What  are  the  modern  speculative  doctrines  on 

that  subject  ? 


36  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

jr. 

PART  m.  DEUS  VOLENS. 


!.  THE   DECREES  OF  GOD. 

/.  th:e  doctrines  stated  and  proved. 

What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ? 

§  1.  The  Decrees  op  God  are  for  his  own  Glory. 
What  is  the  end  of  God's  decrees  ? 
How  may  this  be  proved  ? 

How  is  the  principle  stated  in  these  words  characteristic  of  Au- 
gustinianism  ? 

§  2.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  one  Purpose. 

In  what  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  one  purpose  ? 

Why  must  they  be  so  regarded  ? 

How,  then,  are  they  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  many  ? 

§  3.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  Eternal. 
In  what  sense  are  they  eternal  ? 
How  may  this  be  proved  ? 
What  objections  are  made  to  the  eternity  of  the  decrees? 

§  4.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  Immutable. 
How  prove  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  immutable  ? 

§  5.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  Free. 
What  are  the  three  senses  in  which  they  are  said  to  be  free  ? 
How  prove  that  they  are  rational  and  self-determined  ? 
How  prove  that  they  are  sovereign  and  unconditional  ? 

§  6.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  certainly  Efficacious. 
In  what  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  efficacious  ? 
What  is  the  distinction  between  efficient  and  permissive  decrees  ? 
What  are  the  proofs  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  efficacious  ? 


election.  37 

§  7.  The  Decrees  of  God  are  Universal. 
How  are  events  divided  or  classified  ? 
How  prove  that  the  decrees  refer  to  events  of  all  classes  ? 
How  prove  this  especially  with  reference  to  free  acts  ? 
How  prove  it  with  reference  to  sinful  acts  ? 

//.  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

1.  How  can  foreordination  be  reconciled  with  liberty? 

2.  How  can   the   foreordination  of  sin   be   reconciled  with  the 

holiness  of  God  ? 

3.  How  can  foreordination  be  reconciled  with  the  use  of  means? 

4.  How  does  foreordination  differ  from  fatalism  ? 


II.   ELECTION.* 

/.  THE  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND  PROVED. 
[I.]  ERRONEOUS  VIEWS. 

1.  What  is  the  doctrine  which  makes  communities  the  objects 

of  the  election  spoken  of  in  Scripture  ? 

2.  What  is  the  doctrine  which  makes  classes  the  objects  of  elec- 

tion? 

3.  What  is  the  doctrine  which  makes  individual  believers  the 

objects  of  election  ? 

[II.]  THE  ORTHODOX  STATEMENT. 

What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches,  on  this  subject? 
What  are  the  points  included  in  that  doctrine  ? 

§  1.  Election  is  to  Eternal  Life. 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  election  is  to  eternal  life  ? 

§  2.  Individuals  are  the  Objects  op  Election. 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  individuals  are  the  objects  of  election  ? 

»  Election,  Reprobation,  and  the  Order  of  the  Decrees,  in  Dr.  Hodge's 
new  analysis  of  the  subject  of  theology,  are  included  aa  the  first  topic  under 
Soterology,  namely,  The  Purpose  of  Grace. 

6 


38  systematic  theology. 

§  3.  Election  is  SovereicxN. 
Plow  is  the  sovereignty  of  election    proved  (1)  from  Rom.   ix. 

11,  andxi.  5—8? 
(2.)  From  the  fact  that  men  are  said  to  be  chosen  to  holiness? 
(3.)  From  the  fact  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  ? 
(-t.)  From  the  nature  of  the  objections  which  Paul  was  called 

upon  to  answer  ? 
(5.)  From  the  gratuitous  character  of  salvation  ? 
(G.)  From  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  man's  natural  state  ? 
(7.)  From  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace? 
(8.)  From  Christian  experience  ? 
(9.)  From   the  providential   and  gracious   dispensations  of  God 

in  his  actual  dealings  with  men  ? 

//.  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

1.  How  can  this  doctrine  be    reconciled  with   the   justice  op 

God? 

2.  How,  with  the  responsibility  op  man  ? 

3.  How,  with  those  declarations  of  Scripture,  which  assert  that 

God  wills  all  men  to  be  saved  ? 

4.  How  is  it  consistent  with  the  use  op  means  ? 

///.  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 

What  has  been  the  history  of  the  controversy  upon  this  point  ? 


Ml.   REPROBATION. 

/.   THE  DOCTRINE  STATED  AND  PROVED. 

1 .  Stated. — What  is  meant  by  reprobation  ? 

How  flir  is  reprobation  sovereign,  and  how  far  judicial  ? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  How  does  election  necessarily  involve  repro- 

bation ? 
(2.)  How  is  this  doctrine  proved  from  the  direct  assertions  of 

Scripture  ? 
(3.)  How,  from  the  illustration    used  by  the   apostle,  in  Rom. 

ix.  10? 


ORDER   OF    THE    DECREES.  3U 

(4.)  How,  from  Matt.  xi.  28  ? 

(5.)  How,  from  the  general  doctrine  of  foreordination  ? 

(6.)  How,  from  the  nature  of  the  objections  which  Paul  answers? 

//.   OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

1.  How  can  reprobation  be  reconciled  with  justice? 

2.  How,  with  the  general  call  of  the  gospel? 

3.  How,  with  the  holiness  of  God  ? 

4.  How,  with   the    declarations  of  Scripture  previously  refer- 

red to  ? 


IV.   ORDER  OF  THE  DECREES. 

What  is  the  nature  of  the  question  concerning  the  order  of  the 

decrees  ? 
What  importance  belongs  to  this  question  ? 
What  are  the  three  methods  of  determining  their  order  ? 

§  1.  Arminianism. 
What  is  the  Arminian  theory  of  the  order  of  the  decrees  ?_ 

§  2.    SUPRALAPSARIANISM. 
What  is  Supralapsarianism  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it  ? 

§  3.    SUBLAPSARIANISM. 

What  is  the  Sublapsarian  scheme  ? 

How  does  that  view  differ  from  the  French  or  New  School  view  ? 

How  may  the  common  view  of  the  Reformed  church  be  proved  ? 


40  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


PART  III.    DEUSAGENS. 


I.    GOD'S  ORDINARY  WORKS. 


I.  CREATION. 

7.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CREATION  STATED. 

1.  Affirmatively. — What   is  the   Scripture   doctrine  on  this 

subject  ? 

2.  Negatively. — (1.)  What  is  the  doctrine  of  emanation^  and 

how  does  it  differ  from  creation  ? 
(2.)  What  was  the  old  Greek  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  world  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  dualistic  system  ? 
(4.)  What  are  the  different  forms  of  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal 

creation  ? 
(5.)  What  is  the  pantheistic   doctrine  as  to  the   origin  of  the 

world  ? 

//.  PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 

What  is  the  scriptural  use  of  the  words   jxin   and  xzi^siv'i 
(1.)  What  is  the  negative  argument  in  favour  of  a  creation  ex 

nihilo  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  manner  in  which  the  work 

of  creation  is  described  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  dependence  of  all  things  on 

God? 
(4.)  What  is  the  argument  from  those  passages  of  Scripture  in 

which  TO.  Tiavra  are  said  to  be  Ix   dsoo,  etc.  ? 
(5.)  What  is  the  argument  from  Heb.  xi.  3  ?  and  Rom.  iv.  17  ? 
(6.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the   fact  that  a  beginning  is 

ascribed  to  the  world  ? 
(7.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  perfections  of  God  ? 
Whence  is  the  vital  importance  of  this  doctrine  ? 

///.    OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 
1.  Philosophical. — How   is    the    objection    to    be    answered, 
founded   on   the  axiom,   that  "  nothing  can  come  out  of 
nothin''"r' 


PROVIDENCE.  41 

2.  Theological. — How,  the  objection  that  this  doctrine  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  nature  of  God? 
How,  the  objection  that  it  implies  change  in  God  ? 

IV.   THE  DESIGN  OF  CREATION. 

What  is  the  nature  of  the  question  as  to  the  design  of  the  crea- 
tion ? 
What  different  answers  are  given  to  that  question  ? 

1.  Happiness  of  Creatures. — What  are  the  objections  to  the 

theory  that  the  happiness  of  creatures  is  the  end  of 
creation  ? 

2.  Glory  of  God. — How  is  the  doctrine  that  the  glory  of  God 

is  the  end  of  creation,  to  be  proved  and  vindicated  ? 

V.  MOSAIC  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CREATION. 

1.  Methods    of    Interpretation. — What    are    the    different 

modes  of  interpreting  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  crea- 
tion— historical,  allegorical,  and  mythical  ? 

2.  Proof  of  Historical  Character. — What  is  the  proof  that 

it  is  historical  ? 

3.  Objections   to  Historical  Interpretation. — (1.)   Criti- 

cal.— What  are  the  critical  objections  to  this  interpreta- 
tion ?  and  how  are  they  answered  ? 

(2.)  Astronomical. — What  are  the  astronomical  objections?  and 
how  answered  ? 

(3.)  Geological. — What  are  the  geological  objections?  and  how 
answered  ? 


II.   PROVIDENCE. 

What  are  God's  works  of  providence  ? 

What  is  included  in  the  doctrine  of  providence? 

/.  PRESERVATION. 
[I.]  THE  FACT. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  preservation? 

2.  Proved. — How  is  the  doctrine  of  preservation  proved  from 

Scripture  ? 


42  SYSTEMATIC     THEOLOGY. 

[II.]   NATURE  OF  THE  DIVINE  EFFICIENCY  IN 
PRESERVATION. 

TVhat  are  the  different  theories  as  to  the  nature  of  preservation  ? 

§  1.  First  Extre.aie. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  remonstrant  and  deistic  view  of  the 

nature  of  preservation  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  the  objection  to  this  view  from  the 

language  of  Scripture  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  absolute  dependence  of  creatures? 
(3  )  What,  from  our  religious  nature  ? 

§  2.  Second  Extreme. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  opposite  extreme  view  of  the  nature  of 

preservation  ? 

What  are  the  three  forms  of  this  view  that  preservation  is  a  con- 
tinued creation  ? 

What  are  the  points  of  difference  between  creation  and  preserva- 
tion ? 

2.  Refuted. — What  are  the  objections  to  the  Jirst  form? 
What,  to  the  second? 

What,  to  the  third? 

(1.)  How  does  the  doctrine  of  continued  creation  destroy  identity? 

(2.)  How  does  it  lead  to  idealism  ? 

(3.)  How  does  it  involve  the  denial  of  second  causes? 

(4.)  How  does  it  destroy  freedom  and  responsibility? 

(5.)  How  does  it  lead  to  pantheism  ? 

§  3.   The  True  View. 
What  is  the  true  doctrine  between  these  extremes  ? 

//.    GOVERNMENT, 

[I.]   THE  FACT. 
1.  Stated. — What  is  included  in  the  idea  of  providential  govern- 
ment? 
In  what  sense  is  this  providential  government  universal  ? 
In  what  sense  powerful  ? 
In  what  sense  wise  ? 
In  what  sense  holy  ? 


PROVIDENCE.  4;J 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  ITow  does  the  doctrine  of  providential  govern- 
ment flow  from  the  idea  of  God  ? 

(2.)  How,  from  the  external  evidence  of  a  mind  present  and 
active  everywhere  ? 

(3.)  How,  from  the  religious  instincts  and  necessities  of  our 
own  nature  ? 

Why  may  not  these  religious  feelings  be  accounted  for  from  our 
education  ? 

(4.)  What  is  the  argument  for  God's  providential  government 
from  the  predictions  and  promises  of  Scripture  ? 

(5.)  What  from  history,  personal  and  general  ? 

[II.]  UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT. 

1.  Nature. — (1.)  W^hat   passages  of  Scripture  teach   that   the 

providence  of  God  extends  over  all  the  ordinary  operations 

of  nature  ? 
(2.)  What  passages  teach  that  it  extends  over  the  extraordinary 

operations  of  nature  ? 
(3.)  What  passages  teach  that  it  extends  over  fortuitous  events  'i 

2.  The  Brute  Creation. — What  passages  teach  that  it  extends 

over  irrational  animals  ? 

3.  Nations. — What   passages  teach   that   it  extends   over   the 

destiny  of  nations  ? 

4.  Individuals. — What  passages  teach  that  it  extends  over  the 

destiny  of  individuals  ? 

5.  Free  Acts,  even  Sinful  Acts.  -  What  passages  teach  that 

it  extends  over  men's  free  acts  ? 
Over  their  good  acts  ? 
Over  their  sinful  acts  ? 

[III.]  NATURE  OF  GOD'S  PROVIDENTIAL  GOVERN- 
MENT. 
§  1.  The  Mechanical  Theory. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  rationalistic  and  dcistic  theory  of  the 

divine  government  ? 

2.  Refuted. — What  are  the  objections  to  that  theory  'i 

§  2.  Theory  of  Occasional  Causes. 
(1.)  What  is  the  theory  founded  on  the  assumption  that  God  is 
the  only  cause  ? 


44  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

Who  among  the  schoolmen  adopted  that  principle  ? 

Who  among  the  reformers  ? 

How  may  it  be  proved  that  neither   Calvin  nor  the  reformed 

church  as  a  body  held  that  doctrine  ? 
What  classes  of  modern  theologians  adopt  it  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  the  principle  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  theory  founded  on  the  assumption  that  matter 

cannot  act  ? 
What  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  uniform 

modes  of  divine  operation  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  that  doctrine  ? 

§  3.  The  Harmonic  Theory. 

What  is  the  theory  founded  on  the  assumption  that  neither  mind 

can  act  on  matter,  nor  matter  on  mind  ? 
What  was  Leibnitz's  doctrine  of  preestablished  harmony  ? 

§  4.  The  Doctrine  op  Concursus. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  concursusP 
On  what  principle  is  that  doctrine  founded  ? 
(1.)  What  is  meant  by  general  concursus? 

(2.)  What  by  simultaneous  concursus  ? 

(3.)  What  by  previous  and  predetermining  concursus  ? 

How  extensively  has  this  doctrine  been  held  in  the  church  ? 

According  to  this  theory,  how  does  the  first  cause  stand  related  to 

second  causes  ? 
(1.)  Is  the  effect  referred  to  the  first  or  the  second  cause  ? 
(2.)  Does  concursus  destroy  the  efficiency  of  second  causes  ? 
(3.)  Does  the  agency  of  God  change  the  nature  of  the  second 

cause  ? 
(4)  Is  this  concursus  the  same,  in  relation  to  all  acts  ? 
(5.)  How  is  it  reconciled  by  its  advocates  with  the  liberty  of  free 

agents  ? 
(6.)  How,  with  the  sinful  acts  of  men  ? 
What  four  points  of  difference  between  this  theory  and  that  which 

denies  second  causes  ? 

2.  Refuted. — What  are  the  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  con- 

cursus as  thus  explained  ? 


providence.  45 

§  5.  The  Scripture  Doctrine. 

1.  Relation  of  God  to  the   Material  World. — (1.)    The 

Reality  of  Matter. — "What  is  the  first  great  principle  in- 
volved in  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  providence? 

To  what  two  sources  must  the  idea  of  substance  be  referred  ? 

To  what  doctrines  does  the  principle  of  the  real  existence  of  the 
material  world  stand  opposed  ? 

(2.)  The  Activitij  of  Matter. — What  is  the  second  great  principle 
involved  in  this  doctrine? 

How  prove  that  matter  is  active,  or  that  material  causes  exist  ? 

To  what  does  this  principle  stand  opposed  ? 

On  what  ground  do  many  assume  that  mind  only  can  be  a  cause  ? 

How  may  that  assumption  be  disproved  ? 

(.3.)  The  Uniformity  of  Material  Activity. — What  is  the  third 
principle  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  providence  ? 

What  is  meant  by  nature  ?  and  what  by  law  ? 

What  are  the  laws  of  nature  ? 

(4.)  The  Subordination  of  Material  Forces  to  the  Will  of  God. — 
What  are  the  two  relations  in  which  the  Bible  represents 
God  as  standing  to  material  causes  ? 

2.  Relation  of  God  to  the  Spiritual  World. — (1.)  What 

is  the  essential  characteristic  of  the  human  mind? 
(2.)  How  does  God  stand  related  to  the  freedom  and  activity  of 

man? 
(3.)  How  far  does  the  providential  control  of  God  extend  ? 
AYhat  are  the  points  of  distinction  between  natural  and  gracious 

operations  of  the  human  mind  ? 
How  many  classes  of  acts  are  there  ?  and  what  ? 


II.  GOD'S  EXTRAORDINARY  WORKS. 


MIRACLES. 

/.   WHAT  IS  A  MIRACLE? 

1.  Scripture  Terms. — What  are  the  Scripture  terms  applied  to 
miracles  ?  and  their  meaning  ? 
7 


4G  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

2.  Definition. — What  are  the  characteristics  of  a  miracle? 

3.  Objections  to  this  Definition. — (1.)  What  is  the  objection 

to  this  definition  of  a  miracle,  founded  on  the  fact  that 

nature  and  the  will  of  God  are  identical  ? 
How  is  it  answered  ? 

(2.)  What,  on  the  fact  that  miracles  may  be  due  to  a  higher  law  ? 
How  answered? 
(3.)  What,  on  the  absence  of  distinction  between  miracles  and  a 

higher  providence  ? 
How  answered  ? 

//.  ARE  MIRACLES  POSSIBLE? 

(1.)   What  is  the  argument  against  the  possibility  of  miracles 

founded  on  the  pantheistic  theory  ? 
(2.)   What  argument  against   their    possibility   founded   on    the 

denial  of  second  causes  ? 
(3.)  What  argument  founded  on  the  theory  that  miracles  suppose 

successive  acts  in  God  ? 
(4.)  What  argument  founded  on  the  mechanical  theory? 

///.   CAN  A  MIRACLE  BE  KNOWN? 

(1.)  What  is  the  objection  against  the  possibility  of  an  event  being 
known  as  truly  miraculous,  founded  on  the  assumption  that 
such  knowledge  requires  a  full  acquaintance  with  all  the 
laws  of  nature  ? 

How  far  is  this  assumption  correct  ? 

How  can  we  tell  whether  an  eifect  is  due  to  the  agency  of  God  or 
of  evil  spirits  ? 

How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  moral  criterion  does  not  destroy 
the  value  of  miracles  ? 

(2.)  What  is  Hume's  argument  against  miracles  ? 

What  is  the  answer  to  it  ? 


IV.    VALUE  OF  MIRACLES  AS  EVIDENCE. 

hat  are  the  two  extremes  as  to  the  value  of  i 
of  a  divine  revelation  ? 
What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  their  value  ? 


What  are  the  two  extremes  as  to  the  value  of  miracles  as  proofs 
of  a  divine  revelation  ? 


THE  LAW  OF  GOD. 


/.  IiV  GENERAL. 

Wliat  is  the  proper  place  for  the  consideration  of  the  law,  in  a 
system  of  theology  ? 

1.  The  Law  Defined. — What  is  the  meaning  and  usage  of  the 

words   n^in   and  vo/jio:;,  in  Scripture? 
What  is  the  true  idea  of  law  ? 

2.  How  Revealed. — How  is  the  will  of  God  as  a  law  revealed  ? 
How  prove  that  the  will  of  God  as  a  law  is  revealed  in  the  con- 
stitution of  our  nature? 

How  is  the  diversity  of  opinion  on  moral  subjects  consistent  with 
the  doctrine  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  innate  ? 

3.  Classification   op  the  Laws   op  God. — (1.)    What  are 

positive  laws? 
By  what  criteria  are  these  to  be  distinguished  from  other  laws? 
(2.)  What  are  the  laws  founded  on  the  temporari/  rel;itii)ns  of 

men  ? 
How  may  they  be  distinguished  ? 

(3.)  What  laws  are  founded  on  the  pcrmnnrnt  relations  of  men  ? 
(4.)  What  are  immutahle  laws?  and  on  what  are  they  founded? 

4.  How  par  dispensable. — How  far  are  moral  laws  dispensable? 

5.  Perfection  of  the  Law. — In  what  two  senses  is  the  law  of 

God,  as  revealed  in  Scripture,  perfect? 

How  do  Romanists  and  Protestants  differ  concerning  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  law? 

What  distinction  do  Romanists  make  between  matters  of  law  and 
matters  of  precept  ? 

What  important  practical  inference  flows  from  the  principle  that 
the  law  of  God,  as  revealed  in  Scripture,  is  a  complete 
law  ? 


48  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY, 

How  far  is  expediency  a  legitimate  rule  of  duty  ? 

How  prove  (1)  that  no  obligation  resting  on  expediency  can  be 

either  universal  or  permanent? 
How    prove    (2)    that   acts    deemed    wrong   on    the    ground    of 

expediency  cannot  be  the  ground  of  church  censure  ? 


//.  THE  DECALOGUE. 

In  what  sense  may  the  decalogue  be  regarded  as  a  complete  law '{ 
On  what  principles  is  the  decalogue  to  be  interpreted  ? 

[I.]   FIRST  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  general  principle  inculcated  in  the  first  command- 
ment? 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "worship?" 

What  different  kinds  of  worship  are  admitted  by  Romanists  ? 

What  is  divine  worship  ? 

How  prove  that  the  worship  rendered  by  Romanists  to  saints,  to 
angels,  and  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  divine  worship  ? 

[II.]  SECOND  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  general  principle  involved  in  the  second  command- 
ment? 

(1.)  How  does  it  appear  that  it  does  not  forbid  pictures  and 
statues  f 

(2.)  How  far  does  it  forbid  any  symbolic  representation  of  God? 

(3.)  What  is  the  direct  object  of  the  commandment? 

How  do  Romanists  define  idolatry? 

How  do  Protestants  define  it? 

How  prove  from  Scripture  that  the  Protestant  definition  is 
correct? 

On  what  theory  do  Romanists  justify  the  homage  paid  to  images? 

(4.)  What  is  the  history  of  the  use  of  images  in  the  church? 

What  course  did  Luther  adopt  with  reference  to  them  ? 

What  course  was  adopted  by  the  Reformed  church? 

What  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  second  commandment  forbids 
the  worshipping  of  God  "in  any  way  not  appointed  in  his 
Word?" 


THE   LAW   OF   COD.  49 

What  was  the  controversy  between  the  Puritans  and  tlio  uutliori- 
ties  of  the  Church  of  England  as  to  religious  cercmoiiicr^]' 

[III.]  THIRD  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  third  commandment  ? 
What  is  the  general  principle  involved  in  it? 

§  1.  Oaths. 

1.  Defined. — What  is  an  oath? 

2.  Their  Lawfulness. — How  may  the  lawfulness  of  oaths  be 

proved  from  the  nature  of  an  oath,  and  from  the  Scriptures? 

3.  Proper  Occasion. — When  may  oaths  be  taken  ? 

4.  Mode. — What  are  the  different  modes  of  swearing? 

5.  Obligation. — On  what  principles  are  oaths  to  be  interpreted  ? 
Under  what  circumstances  does  the  obligation  of  an  oath  cease? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  oaths  exacted  by  deceit  or  fraud  are 

nevertheless  binding? 

§  2.  Vows. 

1.  Defined. — What  are  vows? 

2.  Their  Lawfulness. — When  are  vows  lawful  ? 
W^hen  are  vows  unlawful? 

3.  Obligation. — When  does  the  obligation  of  a  vow  cease  ? 

[IV.]  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT. 
§  1.  Its  Design. 
What  does  the  fourth  commandment  require? 
What  is  the  design  of  this  requirement? 

§  2.  Its  Nature. 
How  far  is  this  commandment  positive  ?  and  how  far  moral  ? 

§  3.  Perpetual  Obligation. 
How  may  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  be  proved  ? 

§  4.  Method  of  Observance. 
How  is  the  Sabbath  to  be  sanctified  ? 

What  is  the  rule  to  determine  what  is,  and  what  is  not  lawful  on 
the  Sabbath  ? 


50  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

[V.]  FIFTH  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  principle  of  duty  included  in  the  fifth  commandment? 
On  what  ground  does  it  rest? 

§  1.  Obligations. 
(1.)  What  obligation  does  it  impose  in  reference  to  God  ? 
(2.)  What,  to  parents? 
(3  )  What,  to  magistrates,  or  the  State  ? 

§  2.  Limitations. 

What  is  the  general  principle  which  limits  our  obedience  to  our 

fellow-men  ? 
Specially  to  parents  ? 

Specially  to  magistrates,  and  to  human  laws? 
What  was  the  old  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience? 
Who  is  to  judge  when  human  authority  binds  the  conscience? 
On  what  does  human  government  rest? 
What  legitimately  determines  the  form  in  which  such  government 

should  exist? 

[VI.]  SIXTH  COMMANDMENT. 

§  1.  Its  Kequirements. 
What  does  the  sixth  commandment  enjoin? 

§  2.  Its  Permissions. 

1.  Homicide. — How  prove  that  it  does  not  forbid  homicide  in 

self-defence  ? 

2.  Capital  Punishment. — How  prove  that  is  does  not  forbid 

capital  punishment  ? 
How    prove    that    capital    punishment   is    not   only  just,  but  in 
certain  cases  obligatory? 

3.  Defensive  W^ar. — How   prove   that  defensive  war  is  justi- 

fiable? 
What  wars  are  properly  defensive  ? 

§  3.  Its  Prohibitions. 

1.  Suicide. — How  prove  that  the  sixth   commandment   forbids 

suicide  ? 

2.  Duelling. — How,  that  it  forbids  duelling? 

In  general,  what  is  prohibited  in  the  sixth  commandment? 


THE   LAW   OP   GOD.  51 

[VII.]   SEVENTH  eOMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  design  of  the  seventh  commandment? 

§  1.  Celibacy. 

How  prove  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  countenance  the  Romisli 
doctrine  of  the  special  virtue  of  celibacy '{ 

§  2.  Marriage. 
(1.)  In  what  aspects  is  marriage  a  religious  contract? 
(2.)  In  what  aspects  is  it  a  civil  contract? 

§  3.  Polygamy. 
How  is  monogamy  proved  to  be  the  Scripture  doctrine? 
Was  polygamy  lawful  under  the  Old  Testament?  and  why? 
What  is  the  duty  of  the  church  and  its  ministers  in  reference  to 
polygamy,  in  the  case  of  conversion  of  heathen  polyga- 
mists  ? 

§  4.  Divorce. 

(1.)  What  was  the  Jewish  law  of  divorce? 
(2.)  What  is  the  Christian  lawf? 
(3.)  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject? 
What  is  the  duty  of  the  church  and  its  ministers  in  the  case  of 
unscriptural  civil  laws  of  divorce  ? 

§  5.  Incest. 

What  is  incest? 

(1.)  How  prove  that  the  Levitical  law  is  still  in  force? 

(2.)  Vt''hat  two  principles  of  interpretation  of  this  law  are  advo- 
cated ? 

What  reasons  are  there  for  supposing  that  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion is  too  narrow? 

[VIII.]  EIGHTH  C03IMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  design  of  the  eighth  commandment? 
What  is  the  foundation  of  the  right  of  property? 
When  may  the  right  of  private  property  be  disregarded  ? 

[IX.]   NINTH  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  design  of  the  ninth  commandment  ? 

What  is  falsehood? 

When  is  intentional  deception  lawful? 


52  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

[X  ]   TENTH  COMMANDMENT. 

What  is  the  design  of  the  tenth  commandment? 

///.   THE  CEREMONIAL  LA  W. 

What  are  the  general  divisions  of  the  ceremonial  law  ? 
What  ends  was  it  desis-ned  to  effect? 


BOOK  SECOND  :-AXTHROrOLOGY. 


PART  I.    ORIGIX,  NATURE,  AND  PRIMITIVE 
STATE  OF  MAN. 


I.   CREATION   OF   MAN. 

/.  THE  SCRIPTURE  ACCOUNT. 

AVhat  is  the  Scripture  account  of  the  origin  of  our  race  ? 
What  is  included  in  that  account  ? 

What  is  meant  by  God's  "breathing  into  man  the  breath  of  life  ?" 
In  what  sense  did  man  become  a  "  living  soul  ?" 
How  prove  that  man  was  created  ex  nihilo,  and  not  formed  from 
the  substance  of  God  ? 

//.  FALSE  THEORIES. 
§  1.  Stateh. 

1.  Heathen. — What  was  the  ancient  heathen  doctrine  as  to  the 

origin  of  man  ? 
How  far  do  modern  transcendentalists  teach  the  same  doctrine  ? 

2.  Development. — What  is  the  theory  of  the  author  of  the 

"  Vestiges  of  Creation  ?" 

;>.  Darwin. — What   is    Darwin's    theory,    in    his    "  Origin    of 
Species  ?" 

Wliat  specific  point  of  diiFerence  between  this  and  the  develop- 
ment theory  ? 

§  2.  Refuted. 

What  is  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  all  such  theories  ^ 
What    are    admitted   objections    or    difficulties   connected   with 

them  ? 

8  [53] 


54  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


II.   NATURE   OF   IVJAN. 

/.   DUALISM. 

[I.]   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  what  are  the  constituent  elements  of 
our  nature  ? 

1.  The  Soul  a  Substance. — What  is  the  idea  of  substance? 

and  whence  is  it  obtained  ? 

2.  Distinct  from  the  Body.. — How   prove   that   matter   and 

mind  are  distinct  substances? 
How   do   the    Scriptures    teach    this    distinction     (1)  directly? 
(2)  figuratively  ?  (3)  impliedly  ? 

3.  Relation    of    Soul    and    Body. — What    is    the    relation 

between  the  body  and  the  soul  ? 

What  is  the  theory  of  occasional  causes  ?  and  what  fact  was  it  in- 
vented to  explain  ? 

What  is  the  theory  of  preestablished  harmony  ? 

[II.]   OPPOSING  ERRORS. 
§  1.  Materialism  and  Idealism. 
What  are  the  materialistic  and  idealistic  theories  ? 

§  2.  PantheiSxM. 
What  is  the  pantheistic  theory  ? 

§  3.  Trichotomy. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  trichotomy  ? 

What  was    its   origin   and  what   has    been  its   history   in   the 
church? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  is  that  doctrine  oppd.sed  to  the  account 

of  the  creation  of  man  in  Gen.  ii.  7  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  argument  against  it,  from  the  Scripture  usage 

of  the  words   m&3,   ry\%   4'^X^i  Ttveofxat 
(3.)  What  is  the  argument  from  consciousness  ? 
(4.)  How  are  1  Thess.  v.  23  and  Heb.  iv.  12  to  be  explained  ? 
What  is  the  true  interpretation  of  1  Cor.  xv.  44  ? 


NATURE   OF    MAN.  55 

//.  REALISM. 

§  1.  Its  First  Form. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  realistic  ami  naturalistic  view  of  the 

nature  of  man  ? 
In  what  relation  is  this  generic  liunianity  assumed  to  stand  to  the 

individual  man,  and  the  individual  to  the  genus? 
How  do  scientific  naturalists  descrihe  it  ? 
How  is  it  represented  by  the  school  of  Schleierraacher  ? 
How  do  these  several  representations  agree  or  merge  into  one  ? 
What  attributes  are  ascribed  to  this  generic  humanity  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  In  what  sense  is  this  reali.stic   doctrine  au 

arbitrary  hypothesis  ? 

(2.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  it  finds  no  direct  support  in  Scrip- 
ture ? 

(3.)  How,  that  it  derives  no  support  from  consciousness? 

(4.)  How  does  it  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  ? 

How,  with  the  existence  of  the  soul,  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection ? 

How  do  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  get  over  that  objection  ? 

(5.)  How  may  it  be  shown  to  overthrow  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  ? 

In  what  sense  are  the  persons  of  the  trinity  baoooacot  ?  and  in 
what  sense  are  men  b/woumoi  ? 

What  answer  is  attempted  to  the  foregoing  objection  ? 

(6.)  How  does  is  affect  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  ? 

How  does  it  involve  the  assumption  that  Christ's  human  nature 
was  depraved  ? 

(7.)  How  does  it  modify  other  doctrines  of  the  gospel? 

§  2.  Its  Form. 
What  is  that  form  of  realism  which  admits  that  universals  do  not 

exist  out  of  individuals  ?  or  in  otjier  words,  what  is  meant 

by  luu'versaUa  in  re,  as  distinguished  from  univcrsalia  ante 

rem  ? 
What  are  genera  and  species,  according  to  this  view  ? 
What  definitions  of  species  are  given  by  Prof  Dana  ?   Dr.  Martin? 

and  Agassiz  ? 
How  far  may  these  definitions  be  accepted  ? 
How  are  they  understood  by  realists  ? 


56  SYSTEMATIC    TDEOLOGY. 

///.   ORIGIN  OF  THE  SOUL. 
What  arc  the  different  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul  ? 

[I.]   PKEEXISTENCE. 
What  was  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  preexistence  ? 
What  was  Origen's  doctrine  ? 

[IL]   THE  TRADUCIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

1.  History. — What  is  traducianism  ? 
What  is  creationism  ? 

What  is  the  history  of  the  two  theories  in  the  church  ? 

2.  Arguments  for   Traducianism. — (1.)  What   are  the  pas- 

sages of  Scripture  urged  by  traducianists  in  favor  of  their 
doctrine  ?  and  what  do  those  passages  prove  ? 

(2.)  What  is  their  argument  from  the  history  of  the  creation  of 
Eve? 

(3.)  What,  from  the  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  sin  ? 

(4.)  What  from  the  incarnation  and  its  object? 

(5.)  What,  from  the  assumption  that  the  work  of  creation  ceased 
on  the  seventh  day  ? 

(6.)  What,  from  the  transmission  of  mental  and  moral  peculiari- 
ties from  parent  to  child  ? 

3.  Arguments  for  Creationism. — (1.)  What  is  the  Scripture 

argument  for  creationism  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  nature  of  the  soul  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  the  purity  of  Christ's  human  nature? 

4.  Ob.iections  to  Traducianism. — Why  should  the  advocates 

of  either  theory  abstain  from  dogmatism  ? 

(1.)  What  is  the  danger  of  traducianism,  in  denying  that  God  now 
exercises  creative  power  ? 

What  is  the  Scripture  doctrine  as  to  the  relation  of  God  to  the 
world  ? 

How  show  that  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  nature  or  design 
of  miracles  ? 

How  show  that  it  does  not  assume  that  God  sanctions  by  his 
creative  power  the  acts  of  free  second  causes  ? 

(2.)  How  does  the  theory  of  the  derivation  of  the  human  soul  con- 
flict with  the  realistic  theory,  which  traducianists  main- 
tain ? 


NATURE    OF    MAN.  57 

IV.    UNITY  OF  THE  BACE. 
What  are  the  two  points  involved  in  this  question  ? 
How  do  unity  of  origin  and  unity  of  species  stand  related  to  each 
other  ? 

1st.  unity  of  species. 


What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  unity  of  mankind : 
What  are  tlie  views  of  naturalists  on  this  subject? 

[L]   THE   ZOOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 
§  1.  What  are  SrEciE.s? 

1.  Dr.    Hodge's   Definition. — (L)  What    is    meant    by   the 

originality  of  species  ? 
How  prove  that  any  species  is  an  original  type  ? 
(2.)  What  is  meant  by  the  universality  of  species? 
(3.)  What  is  meant  by  the  permanence  of  species? 
How  is  the  immutability  of  species  determined  ? 

2.  CuviER. — What  is  Cuvier's  definition  of  species  ?  and   what 

is  the  objection  to  it  ? 

3.  Pritchard  and  Carpenter. — What   definition  is  given  by 

Pritchard  and  Carpenter?  and  what  objection  to  it  ? 

4.  Morton. — What   is   Dr.  Morton's   definition  ?  and  what  ob- 

jection to  it  ? 

5.  Agassiz  and  Dana. — What  is  the  definition  given  by  Agassiz 

in  his  Zoology  ? 
What  is  Prof.  Dana's  definition  ? 
Why  are  these  definitions  to  be  preferred  ? 

§  2.  What  are  the  Criteria  of  Species? 

1.  Corporeal. — How  far  does  the  acoaa  determine  the  species? 

2.  Physical. — How  far  the  ^vo-^c  ? 

3.  Psychological. — How  far  the  ^'-ypy  ? 

4.  Procreative. — How  far  is  permanence  a  proof  of  the  identity 

of  species  ? 
What  is  the  proof  that  hybrids  cannot  propagate? 

§  3.  Application  of  these  tests  to  the  Human  Race. 

1.  Corporeal. — How  does  the   somatic   structure  of  mankind 
prove  that  all  men  belong  to  the  same  species? 


58  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

2.  Physical. — How  is  this  proved  by  tlieir  physiology  ? 

3.  Psychological. — How,  from  their  psychological  nature  ? 

4.  Procreative. — How,  from  their  power  of  px-opagation  ? 

[II.]   THE   PHILOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 

What  is  the  argument  on  this  subject  from  the  relation  of  dif- 
ferent languages? 

[III.]   THE   MORAL  ARGUMENT. 

What  is  the    argument    on    this   subject   from   man's    religious 

nature  ? 
What,  from  the  fallen  state  of  all  men?  and  the  universal  need 

of  the  gospel  ? 

2d.   unity  of  origin. 


If  men  are  of  one  species,  how  prove  that  they  all  have  had  a 
common  ori";in  ? 


III.  ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

/.    THE  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE. 

[I.]  MAN  WAS  CREATED  MATURE,  PERFECT. 

How  prove  that  man  was  created  in  a  state  of  maturity  ? 

In  what  sense  was  he  created  perfect? 

What  are  the  diflFerent  views  as  to  the  nature  of  that  perfection  ? 

How  was  man's  body  perfect  ? 

In  what  sense  was  it  immortal  ?  and  impassible  ? 

In  what  relation  did  it  stand  to  the  soul  ? 

[II.]  IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD. 
§  1.  Meaning  of  the  Term. 

\.  A  False  Statement. — What  are  the  different  interpreta- 
tions of  "image"  and  "similitude,"  (Gen.  i.  2G,)  supposing 
those  words  to  be  distinct  ? 

What  is  the  true  explanation  of  them  ? 


ORIGINAL   STATE  OF  MAN.  5H 

2.  Man's  Spirituality  and  Moral  Character. — AceorJini,' 

to  the  reformed  doctrine,  wherein  did  the  image  of  (.Jod, 
in  which  man  was  created,  consist? 

3.  Extreme  Opinions. — (1.)  What  was  the  extreme  view  on 

this  subject  held  by  the  Greek  church? 
What  is  the  Socinian  view? 
(2.)  What  is  the  Lutheran  view? 

§  2.  Original  Eigiiteousness. — The  true  Elements  of 
Likeness  to  God. 

In  what  sense  was  man  created  with  knowledge  ? 

What  was  the  extent  of  the  knowledge  of  nature  with  which  he 

was  endowed  ? 
What  was  the  nature  of  his  knowledge  of  God  ? 
What  is  the  true  interpretation  of  Col.  iii.  10? 
In  that  passage,  what  is  the  sense  of  vso^?  what  the  force  of 

e/c  iTzcyvcoacvt  and  the  meaning  of  zWtravroc' ? 
What  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  Eph.  iv.  2-4  ? 
In  what  passage,  how  do  ocxacoaovTj  and  baiozr^^  differ? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  dXr^dtiaQt  and  what  is  the  force  of  the 

genitive  case  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  man  was  thus  created  in  the  image 

of  God,  (1)  from  Scripture?    (2)  from  the  nature  of  the 

case?     (3)  from  what  is  involved  in  the   restoration  of 

humanity  by  Christ? 

[III.]   WITH  DOMINION  OVER  THE  CREATURES. 

What  is  the  proof  that  man's  dominion  was  included  in  his  like- 
ness to  God  ? 
What  was  the  extent  of  the  dominion  designed  for  liim? 

//.  TEE  ROMANIST  DOCTRINE. 

1.  Stated. — What  do  Protestants  mean  by  original   righteous- 

ness? 
What  do  Romanists  mean  by  it? 
In  what  sense  do  Protestants  hold  that  original  righteousness  was 

natural ? 
Why  do  Protestants  insist  upon  this  definition  ? 
In  what  sense  do  Romanists  hold  that  it  was  supernatural  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  does  this  doctrine  degrade  the  original 

state  of  man  ? 


60  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

1? 


(2.)  How  is  it  inconsistent  with  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God? 
(3.)  How  does  it  pervert  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  ? 
(4.)  How  does  it  modify  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  and  other 
important  doctrines? 

///.    THE  PELAGIAN  DOCTRINE. 

[I.]    xAIAN  AT  CREATION  WAS  WITHOUT  MORAL 
CHARACTER. 

What  is  the  Pelagian  and  rationalistic  doctrine  as  to  man's  orio-inal 
state  ?  * 

On  what  view  of  the  nature  of  virtue  and  sin  is  that  doctrine 
founded  ? 

§  1.  Does  Moral  Character  reside  in  Inward  Disposi- 
tions, AS  well  as  in  Outward  Acts? 

1.  The  Pelagian  Doctrine  stated.— What  is  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  the  Pelagian  system  ? 

What  is  meant  by  dispositions,  habits,  or  principles,  as  distin- 
guished from  acts  ? 

3.  Refuted.— (1.)  What  is  the  argument  from  conscience  to 
prove  that  such  principles  may  have  a  moral  character? 

(2.)  What,  from  our  instinctive  judgments  of  other  men  ? 

What,  from  the  common  judgments  of  men? 

(3.)  How  prove  that  if  dispositions  have  no  moral  character,  acts 
cannot  be  either  morally  good  or  evil? 

What  is  the  argument  from  the  nature  of  character  ? 

(4.)  AVhat  is  the  direct  argument  from  Scripture  on  this  subject? 
and  what,  from  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  and  regenera- 
tion ? 

(5.)  What,  from  the  faith  of  the  church  ? 

§  2.  Does  the  Moral  Character  of  any  Disposition 

DEPEND   ON   its    OrIGIN  ?     OR   ON   ITS   NaTURE  ? 

1.  The  Pelagian  Doctrine  stated.— What  is  the  doctrine  of 

those  who  make  the  moral  character  of  dispositions  depend 
on  their  origin  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument   from   consciousness, 

that  the  character  of  moral  dispositions  does  not  depend 

upon  their  origin ,  but  upon  their  nature  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  judgments  of  men  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  Scripture  ? 


THE  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM — THE  FALL.        61 

(4.)  What,  from  the  faith  of  the  church  ? 

3.  Objection  Answered. — How  may  it  he  shown  that  the  doc- 
trine of  concreated  riuhteousness  does  not  involve  the 
doctrine  of  what  is  called  physical  holiness  and  physical 
depravity? 

[II.]   MAN  WA&  CREATED  MORTAL. 

1.  Pelagian  Doctrine  stated. — AVhat  is  the  second  element 

in  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  the  original  state  of 
man? 

2.  Arguments  in  favor  of  it. — "What  are  the  arguments  in 

favor  of  the  doctrine  that  man  was  created  mortal  ?• 
(1)  from  his  nature?  (2)  from  analogy?  (3)  from  Scrip- 
ture? 

3.  Arguments  against  it. — What  two  points  are  involved  in 

this  question  ? 
(1.)  How  prove  that  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin  ? 
(2.)  How  is  1  Cor.  xv.  42 — 50  to  be  explained  ? 


PART  II.   MAN'S  PROBATION  AND  APOSTASY. 


THE  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM,  AND  THE  FALL 

/.   THE  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

§  1.  The  Fact  of  the  Covenant. 
Why  is  the  arrangement  with  Adam  called  a  covenant  ? 
What  is  the  importance  of  its  being  so  presented  ? 
Why  is  it  called  the  covenant  of  life  ?  and  of  works  ? 

§  2.  The  Promise. 

1.  Stated. — What  was  the  life  promised  ? 

2.  Proved. — How  prove  that  the  life  promised  includes  spiritual 

and  eternal  life  ? 

9  _ 


62  systematic  theology. 

§  3.  The  Condition. 
What  was  the  condition  ? 

(1.)  How  prove  that  perfect  obedience  was  the  condition  ? 
(2.)  Was  perpetual  ofcedience  the  condition  ? 

§  4.  The  Penalty. 

1.  Stated. — What  was  the  penalty? 

2.  Proved. — How  prove  that   spiritual  and  eternal  as  well  as 

temporal  death  were  included  in  the  threatening  ? 

§  5.  The  Parties. 
Who  were  the  parties  to  the  covenant  ? 
How  prove  that  Adam  acted  as  the  representative  of  his  race  ? 

§  6.  Perpetuity  of  the  Covenant. 
Was  this  a  perpetual  covenant  ? 

//.   THE  FALL. 

1.  The  Scripture  Account. — What  is  the  scriptural  account 

of  the  fall  ? 
How  prove  that  this  account  is  historical  ? 

2.  The  Tree  of  Life. — What  was  the  typical  import  and  virtue 

of  the  tree  of  life  ? 

3.  The  Tree  of  the  Knoavledge  op  GtOOD  and  Evil. — What 

are  the  different  views   of  the  meaning   of  the  phrase, 
"  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  ?" 
What  was  the  symbolical  character  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil  ? 

4.  The  Serpent. — Why  are  we  bound  to  assume  that  a  real  ser- 

pent was  engaged  in  the  temptation  ? 
How  prove  that  Satan  was  the  real  tempter  ? 

5.  The  Temptation. — What  was  the  nature  of  the  temptation  ? 

6.  The  Immediate  Effect. — What  were  the  effects  of  disobe- 

dience upon  our  first  parents  ? 


METAniYSICAL   TUEOUIEs.  63 


PART  III.   NATURE  OF  SIN,  AND  OF  ADAM'S 
TRANSGRESSION. 


What  are  the  data  from  which  we  can  determine  the  nature  of 

sin? 
In  what  respects  is  it  a  metaphysical  question? 
In  what  respects  is  it  a  moral  and  theological  question  ? 

I.    METAPHYSICAL  THEORIES. 

/.   THE  DUALISTIG  THEORY. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  dualistic  theory,  in  its  different  forms. 

as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin  ? 

2.  Refuted. — What  are  the  arguments  against  that  theory? 

II.   THE  LDIITATIOy  THEORY. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  theory  which  makes  sin  a  mere  limita- 

tion of  being  ? 
On  what  principle  is  that  theory  founded? 
How  is  this  doctrine  presented  by  Spinoza?  and  by  Baur? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  llow  does  this  theory  confound  phy.sical  and 

moral  evil? 
(2.)  How  does  it  conflict  with  the  idea  of  a  personal  God? 
(3.)  How  does  it  destroy  all  virtue,  and  make  might  right? 

III.  LEIBNITZ'S  THEOR  Y. 

1.  Stated. — How  does   Leibnitz   present  the  theory  of  limita- 

tion? 
What  was  the  design  of  the  Theodicy? 
How  does  it  account  for  the  origin  of  sin? 
Wherein  does  it  make  sin  to  consist? 
What  were  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  this  theory? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  does  this  theory  make  sin  necessary? 
(2.)  How  does  it  make  God  responsible  lor  the  existence  of  sin? 


64  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

(3.)  How  does  it  tend  to  destroy  the  distinction  between  moral 

and  physical  evil? 
(4.)  How  does  it  tend  to  destroy  the  sense  of  guilt? 

IV.   THEORY  OF  ACTION  AND  REACTION 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  theory  which  refers  sin  to  the  antago- 

nism which  is  necessary  to  life  ? 
How  is  life  in  all  its  forms  actually  developed? 

2.  Kefuted. — How  does  this  view  destroy  the  nature  of  sin  ? 

V.  SCHLEIERMACHERS  THEORY. 

1.  Stated  — (1.)  What  is  Schleiermacher's  idea  of  God  and  his 

attributes  ? 
(2.)  What  does  he  mean  by  omnipotence  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  relation  of  this  absolute  power  to  the  world? 

and  is  the  world  finite  or  infinite  ? 
(4.)  W^hat   is   the    distinction   w^hich   he    makes    between    self- 
consciousness  and  God-consciousness  ? 
(5.)  Wherein  consists  the  normal  or  ideal  state  of  man? 
(6.)  What  is  the  sense  of  absolute  dependence  in  which  he  makes 

all  religion  to  consist  ? 
(7.)  What,  according  to  his    theory,  was   the    original   state  of 

man  ? 
(8.)  What  is  his  present  state  ?   and  wherein  does  its  sinfulness 

consist  ? 
(9.)  What  is  redemption  ? 
What  is  his  doctrine  concerning  Christ,  and  the  mode  in  which 

we  are  redeemed  through  him  ? 

2.  Refuted. — How  does  this  theory  preclude  the  possibility  of 

sin  in  the  true  sense? 

VI   THE  "FIESH''  THEORY. 
1.   Stated. — What  is  the  theory  which  makes  the  flesh  the  seat 

and  source  of  sin  ? 
In  what  sense  is  the  word  "fle.sh"  used  by  the  advocates  of  this 

theory  ? 
(1.)  What  is  the  Manichean  form  of  this  doctrine? 
(2.)  What  is  the  Romish  form  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  common  form  ? 


METAPHYSICAL   THEORIES.  65 

What  are  the  three  methods  adopted  to  account  for  the  fact  that 
the  higlier  powers  yield  to  the  lower? — wcaknu.ssy — free- 
dom ? — development  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  against  this  theory, 

from  the  sinfulness  of  fallen  angels  'i 
(2.)  What,  from  spiritual  sins  ? 
(3.)  How  does  it  weaken  the  sense  of  guilt  ? 
(4.)  What  argument  against  it,  from  its  tendency  to  asceticism  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  the  old,  if  unrenewed,  increase  in 

sinfulness  ? 
(6.)  What   are  the  two  modes  of  interpreting   the  passages  of 

Scripture   in   which    aan^    and    Ti'JE'jfia,    aa/r/exo;;    and 

Tzovjuarr/oz  are  opposed  to  each  other  ? 
What  are  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  orthodox  interpretation  ? 

VII.   THE  "SELFISHNESS''  THEORY. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  theory  which  makes  all  sin  to  consist  in 

selfishness  ? 
What  is  the  difference  between  self-love  and  selfishness  ? 
What  is  the  difference  between  selfishness  as  a  disposition  and 

selfishness  as  a  purpose  ? 
What  are  the  principles  on  which  this  theory  founded  ? — as  to 

(1.)  the  greatest  good?  (2.)  the  nature  of  virtue  ?  (3.)  the 

benevolence   of  God?    (4.)  the   design   of  the  universe? 

(5.)  God's  reason  for  permitting  sin?  (G.)  the  amount  of 

sin  in  the  world  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  this  theory  contra- 

dicts our  native  moral  convictions  ? 

(2.)  How,  that  it  is  opposed  to  our  religious  nature  ? 

(3.)  How,  that  its  practical  effect  is  corrupting  and  degrading? 

(4.)  How,  that  we  are  incompetent  to  decide  what  is  for  the 
greatest  good  ? 

(5.)  How  does  it  confound  sin  and  holiness  ?  and  justify  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  right  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come  ? 

Another  Form  of  the  same  Theory. 

What  is  the  doctrine  which  makes  selfishness   not  as  opposed  to 

benevolence,  but  to  the  love  of  God,  to  include  all  sin  ? 
What  are  the  arguments  against  this  form  of  doctrine  ? 


66  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


II.  THEOLOGICAL  THEORIES. 

What  is  the  difference  between  a  philosophical  and  a  theological 
theory  of  sin  ? 

/.  PATRISTIG  THEORIES. 

What  was  the  general  state  of  opinion  on  this  subject  in  the  early 

church  ? 
What  were  the  earliest  forms  of  error  on  the  subject? 
What  was  the  main  design  of  the  teachings  of  the  early  fathers  on 

this  subject? 
What  did  those  fathers  teach  as  to  (1.)  the  universality  of  sin? 

(2.)  the  relation   of  all   sin  to  that  of  Adam?    (3.)  the 

necessity  of  divine  grace  ?  (4.)  the  state  of  infants  ? 
How  far  did  the   Greek  fathers  teach  the   doctrine  of  original 

sin? 

//.  PELAGIANISM. 

1.  Stated. — Who  were  Pelagius,  Coelestius,  and  Julian? 
What  was  the  radical  principle  of  their  theory  of  sin? 

(1.)  How  did  this  determine  their  doctrine  of  the  liberty  of  the 

will? 
(2.)  How,  as  to  the  nature  of  sin  ? 
(3.)  How,  as  to  inherent  or  transmitted  sin? 
(4.)  How,  as  to  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin  ? 
(5.)  How,  as  to  perfection,  or  the  possibility  of  living  without 

sin? 
(6.)  How,  as  to  the  terms  of  salvation? 
(7.)  How,  as  to  grace? 
(8.)  How,  as  to  infant  baptism  and  infimt  salvation? 

2.  Refuted. — What  was  the  action  of  the  church  in  reference  to 

Pelagianism  ? 
(1.)  What  may  be  said   against   the   fundamental    principle    of 

Pelagianism  ? 
(2.)  What,  against  the  Pelagian  view  of  the  nature  of  sin  ? 
(3.)  What,  against  the  Pelagian  doctrine  of  liberty? 
(4.)  How  does  Pelagianism  leave  the  universal  sinfulness  of  man 

unaccounted  for? 
(5.)  How  docs  it  fail  to  satisfy  the  necessities  of  our  nature? 


THEOLOGICAL   THEORIES.  07 

(6.)  How  does  it  do  away  with  the  need  of  redemption  ? 
(7.)  How  does  it  contradict  the  teachings  of  Scripture? 

///.  AUGUSTINIANISM. 
TVho  was  Augustine  ? 

What  are  the  two  distinct  elements  in  Augustine's  doctrine  uf 
sin? 

§  1.  The  Speculative  Element. 

T\Tiat  was  his  doctrine  as  to  the  formal  nature  of  sin  ? 

What  led  to  that  view  of  its  nature  ? 

In  what  particulars  did  Augustine  differ  from  Origen,  in  his  view 
on  this  subject? 

What  objects  was  this  theory  of  Augustine  designed  to  accom- 
plish? 

§  2.  The  Experimental  Element. 

What  was  the  true  foundation  of  Augustine's  doctrine  of  sin  ? 

1.  Augustine's  Experience. — (1.)  What  is  included  in  con- 

viction  of  sin? 
(2.)  To  what  acts  and  states  of  the  mind  does  the  sense  of  sin 

attach  ? 
(3.)  What  does  consciousness  teach  as  to  the  commencement  of 

sin  in  us? 
(4.)  What,  as  to  our  ability? 
(5.)  In  what  sense  is  sin,  according  to  Augustine,  voluntary,  as 

distinguished  from  a  necessary  evil  ? 
(6.)  How  do  we  know  that  what  is  true  of  ourselves  in  this  matter 

is  true  of  other  men  ? 

2.  Augustine's  Inferences. — (1.)  How,  then,  must  men   be 

saved  ? 
(2.)  How  does  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace  necessarily  flow 

from  the  above  mentioned  facts  of  consciousness  ? 
(3.)  How,  the  gratuitousness  of  salvation  and  the  sovereignty  of 

election  ? 
How  do  these  facts  preclude  the  possibility  of  merit  ? 
(4.)  How,  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  ? 
What   is   the    great   fundamental    point   of    difference    between 

Augustine  and  Pelagius,  underlying  all  these  particulars? 

3.  The   Scripture   Solution. — (1.)  What  do  the   Scriptures 

teach,  confirmatory  of  these  facts,  as  to  Adam's  ori.LMnal 
state  ? 


68  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

(2.)  As  to  his  apostasy? 

(3.)  As  to  the  effects  of  Adam's  sin  on  himself? 

(4.)  As  to  the  effects  on  his  posterity? 

(5.)  As  to  the  nature  of  inherent  corruption  as  sin 

And  as  to  the  penal  character  of  original  sin  ? 

(6.)  As  to  our  union  with  Adam  ? 

(7.)  As  to  our  inability? 

(8.)  As  to  grace  and  election  ? 


How  does  it  appear  that  the  above  doctrines  constitute  the  theory 

of  Augustine,  to  the  exclusion  of  his  opinions  on  minor 

points  ? 
What  were  some  of  his  peculiar  opinions  which  do  not  enter  into 

his  system  ? 
What  did  he  teach  especially  as  to  our  union  with  Adam  ? 
How  far  was  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  received  and  sanctioned 

in  the  church  ? 

lY.  SEMI-PELAGIANISM. 

What  was  the  historical  origin  of  Semi-Pelagianism  ? 
Who  were  the  leaders  of  that  party  ? 

(1.)  What  was  the  principal  work  of  Cassian,  and  his  doctrine  ? 
(2.)  What,  of  Vincent  of  Sirius  ? 
(3.)  What  of  Faustus  ? 

In  what  points  did  these  all  agree  with  each  other,  and  differ  from 
Augustine  ? 

F.   ROMANISAI. 

§  1.  Anselm. 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  Anselm  on  the  subject  of  original  sin  ? 

§  2.  Abelard. 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  Abelard  ?  and  afterwards  of  Catharinus 
and  Pighius  ? 

§  3.  Aquinas. 
What  was  the  doctrine  of  Thomas  Aquinas  and  the  Dominicans  ? 
(1.)  As  to  the  original  state  of  man? 
(2.)  As  to  the  effects  of  Adam's  transgression  ? 


THEOLOGICAL   THEORIES.  69 

(3.)  As  to  the  nature  of  original  righteousness? 

(-4.)  As  to  the  nature  of  original  sin  ? 

(5.)  As  to  the  nature  and  moral  character  of  concupiscence  ? 

(6.)  As  to  the  nature  of  the  deterioration  of  the  soul  by  the  i'all  ? 

(7.)  As  to  ability  or  free  will  ? 

§  4.  Duns  Scotus. 

What  were  the  opinions  of  Duns  Scotus  and  the  Franciscans  on 
these  points  ? 

§  5.   Council  of  Trent. 

1.  History. — What  rendered  the  task  of  the  Council  of  Trent  in 

deciding  what  was  the  church  doctrine  of  original  sin  so 

difficult? 
How  did  they  meet  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  fact  that  the 

Protestants  whom  they  intended  to  condemn  professed  the 

Augustinian  doctrine  ? 
How    did   they    endeavor    to   meet    the    difficulty   arising   from 

diversity  of  opinion  in  the  Latin  Church  itself? 
What  was  the  council  directed  by  the  legates  to  do? 

2.  Decisions. — (1.)  What  did  the  council  decide  as  to  the  effects 

of  Adam's  sin  on  himself? 
(2.)  What,  as  to  its  effects  upon  his  posterity  ? 
(3.)  What,  as  to  the  universality  of  sin  and  the  mode  of  its 

removal  ? 
(4.)  What,  as  to  the  design  and  effect  of  infant  baptism  ? 
(5.)  What,  as  to  the  ability  of  man,  since  the  fall? 

3.  Interpretation  of  the  Canons. — How  have  the  canons  of 

the  council  been  interpreted  by  Romanists? 

How,  by  Protestants  ? 

1st. — (1.)  AVhat  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  sin  was  taught  in 
the  Church  of  Kome,  which  seems  incompatible  with 
original  sin? 

How  does  Bellarmine  meet  that  objection? 

(2.)  How  does  the  doctrine  that  original  righteousness  is  a  super- 
natural gift  apparently  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  ? 

(3.)  What  is  the  argument  to   prove  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
denies  that  doctrine,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  council 
decided  that  concupiscence  in  the  baptized  is  not  sin  ? 
10 


70  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

2d. — What  are  the  arguments  on  the  other  side? 

(1.)   From    the    condemnation    of   Pelagian    and    Semi-Pelagian 

doctrines  ? 
(2.)  From   what  the    council    declared   to  ho    transmitted   from 

Adam  to  his  descendants  ? 
(3.)  From  their  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  ? 
In  what  sense  did  all  parties  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation 

of  Adam's  sin  ? 

TT.  PROTESTANTISM. 

What  is  the  Protestant  definition  of  sin  ? 

§  1.  A  Specific  Evil. 
In  what  sense  is  sin  a  specific  evil  ? 

§  2.  Bearing  Kelation  to  Law. 
What  is  meant  by  its  bearing  relation  to  law  ? 
What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  "law?" 

§  3.  Namely,  the  Law  op  God. 

What  are  the  different  views  of  the  nature  of  the  law  to  which 
sin  stands  related  ? 

1.  Negatively. — (1.)  How  show  that  it  is  not  merely  the  law 

of  reason  ? 
(2.)  Nor  the   eternal  fitness  of  things,  the  moral   order  of  the 

universe  ? 
(3.)  Nor  expediency? 

2.  Affirmatively. — How  prove  that  it  must  be  the  will  of  a 

personal  being  ? 

§  4.  Want  of  Conformity. 

What  is  the  scriptural  and  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  demands 
of  the  moral  law  ? 

How  prove  that  it  demands  entire  conformity  to  the  will  of 
God? 

(1.)  How  does  this  exclude  the  idea  of  perfection  in  this  life? 

(2.)  How  does  it  exclude  the  idea  of  merit  ? 

(3.)  How  does  it  exclude  the  possibility  of  works  of  supereroga- 
tion '{ 


TIIEOLOOICAL    TIIEORIKS.  71 

Wliat  is  the  Papal  ductrine  of  works  of  suporerojration? 

(■4.)  How  does  it  follow  from  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  sin,  that 

sin  does  not  consist  exclusively  in  voluntary  exercises  ? 
What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  '-voluntary?" 
What  is  the  distinction  between  sin  and  sinfulness,  or  between 

actual  and  habitual  sin  ? 
How  show  that  sin  consists  in  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of 

God? 
What  is  the  true  interpretation  of  1  John  iii.  4  ? 

§  5.  Including  both  Guilt  and  Pollution. 

What  are  the  two  elements  included  in  sin? 

What  is  meant  by  guilt? 

How  is  it  distinguished  from  demerit  or  blameworthiness  ? 

What  is  the  theological  distinction  between  reatus  cidpre  and 
reatus  paneef 

What  are  the  arguments  against  the  doctrine  that  guilt  attaches 
only  to  what  consists  in  voluntary  action,  or  flows  from 
it?  and  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  that  it  is  the  nature  and 
not  the  origin  of  sin,  or  what  is  sinful,  which  makes  the 
just  ground  of  punishment? 

(1.)  What  is  the  argument  from  conscience  on  that  subject? 

(2.)  What,  from  analogy? 

(3.)  What,  from  Scripture? 

(4.)  What,  from  the  faith  of  the  church  ? 


72  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 


PART  lY.    EFFECT  OF  ADAM'S  SIN  ON  HIS 
POSTERITY. 


In  wliat  respect  do  all  Christian  churches  agree  as  to  the  effect  of 

Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity? 
As  to  what  points  do  they  differ? 
What  is  the  Augustinian  or  Reformed  doctrine  as  to  the  effect  of 

Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity? 
What  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  as  to  the  reason  why  we  suffer  the 

evil  consequences  of  his  sin  ? 
What  are  the  three  great  doctrines  included  in  the  Augustinian 

view  of  our  relation  to  Adam,  and  its  consequences  ? 


I.   liyiPUTATION. 

I.   IMMEDIA  TE  IMP  UTA  TION. 

[I.]  THE  DOCTRINE  STATED. 

§  1.  The  Fact  of  Imputation. 

1st.  What  is  the  Scripture  meaning  of  the  word  "  imputation  ?" 

2(1.  In  what  sense  is  Adam's  sin  said  to  he  imputed  to  us  ? 

What  is  meant  by  the  guilt  of  that  sin  ? 

3(7.  What  is  the  analogy  between  (1)  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  (2)  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  (3)  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us  ? 

§  2.  The  Ground  of  Imputaton. 

What  is  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin?  or  the 
nature  of  the  union  between  him  and  his  posterity? 

(1.)  What  is  the  natural  relation  between  Adam,  as  the  father  of 
of  the  human  race,  and  his  descendants? 

(2.)  What  is  the  federal  relation  between  him  and  us  ? 

What  is  the  real  point  of  dispute  between  those  who  affirm  and 
those  who  deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin? 


IMPUTATION.  73 

[II.]  THE  DOCTRINE  1>R0VED. 

(1.)  What  is  the  argument  for  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  from 
the  facts  stated  in  the  account  of  the  apostasy,  and  Irom 
the  federal  headship  of  Adam  ? 

(2.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  the  evil  consequences  of  his  sin  do 
actually  come  upon  us  ? 

(3.)  What,  from  the  Scripture  proof  of  the  penal  character  of 
these  evil  consequences? 

(4.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  the  principle  of  representation  per- 
vades the  whole  Bible  ?  and  is  constantly  recognized  in  the 
dispensations  of  Providence  ? 

(5.)  What,  from  the  connection  between  this  doctrine  and  the 
other  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ? 

(6.)  What,  from  the  design  of  the  apostle's  argument  in  Rom. 
V.  12—21  ? 

What  fact  is  asserted  in  v.  12? 

What  proof  of  that  fact  in  vv.  13,  14? 

In  what  sense  is  Adam  declared  to  be  a  type  of  Christ  ? 

How  are  they  said  to  differ,  in  vv.  15,  IG,  17? 

What  is  the  purport  of  vv.  18,  19? 

What  inferences  are  drawn  in  vv.  20,  23, 

What  is  the  argument  from  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22? 

(7.)  AVhat  is  the  argument  from  common  consent? 

[III.]   OBJECTIONS. 

1.  Stated. — What  arc  the  popular  objections  to  the  doctrine  of 

imputation  ? 

2.  Refuted. — How  may  those  objections  be  answered  ? 

//.  MEDIATE  IMPUTATION. 
§  1.  Statement  and  History  of  the  Theory. 

On  what  points  did  the  Reformed  theologians  of  the  school  of 
Saumur,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  depart  from  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  the  church  ? 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  Placacus  on  original  sin? 

What  was  the  judgment  of  the  National  Synod  of  France  on  that 
doctrine  ? 

What,  of  the  Swiss  churches? 

What,  of  the  church  of  Holland? 


74  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

By  whom  was  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation  favored? 
What  was  the  doctrine  of  President  Edwards  on  this  point? 
How  can   it  be    reasonably  accounted  for,  that  the  doctrine  of 

immediate    imputation   was  less   clearly  presented  before 

than  after  this  controversy? 
How   may   it   be   proved   that   it   was   nevertheless   universally 

adopted  ? 

§  2.  Refuted. 

(1.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  mediate  imputa- 
tion directly  contradicts  the  Scriptures,  as  to  the  ground 
of  condemnation  of  our  race  ? 

(2.)  How,  that  it  denies  the  penal  character  of  the  loss  of  right- 
eousness and  inherent  depravity? 

(3.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  it  increases  rather  than  relieves 
difficulties? 

(4.)  What  is  the  argument  against  the  doctrine,  from  the  analogy 
between  Adam  and  Christ,  presented  by  the  apostle? 

(5.)  What  is  the  objection  drawn  from  the  false  principle  on 
which  the  doctrine  is  founded? 

///.   "PROPAGATION''  THEORIES. 

§  1.  Pre-existence. 

1.  Stated. — What  was  Origen's  solution  of  the  problem  of  native 

depravity  in  this  world? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  against  this  theory, 

founded  on    the    absence    of  any  scriptural   proof  of  its 

truth  ? 
(2.)   How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to  Scripture? 
(3.)  How  may  it  be  shown  from  consciousness  to  be  an  arbitrary 

assumption  ? 
(4.)  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  an  unsatisfactory  solution  ? 

§  2.  Realism. 
Echcards     Thcor}/. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  realistic  explanation  of  the  fact  of  uni- 
versal corruption? 

Why  is  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  us? 

ist.   Stated. — What  constitutes  identity,  according  to  Edwards  ? 

By  what  illustrations  does  he  attempt  to  show  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  numerical  identity? 


IMPUTATION.  75 

According  to  this  doctrine,  wherein  consists  the  identity  of  the 

soul? 
How  may  this  view  be  shown  to  be  identical  with  the  doctrine  of 

continued  creation? 

2d.  Refuted. — (1.)  "What  is  the  false  assumption  on  which  this 
theory  rests  ? 

(2.)  How  does  this  theory  destroy  the  distinction  between  crea- 
tion and  preservation? 

(3.)  How  does  it  involve  the  denial  of  the  idea  of  substance? 

(4.)  How  does  it  tend  to  pantheism? 

(5.)  How  may  the  "identity"  of  Edwards  be  shown  to  be  only 
apparent  identity? 

"Wherein  does  this  doctrine  agree  with  the  realistic  theory?  and 
wherein  does  it  differ  from  it? 

2.  Realistic  Theory  Refuted.  1st.  Arguments  against  the 
Theory. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  against  realism,  from 
its  hypothetical  character  ? 

(2.)  "What,  from  the  absence  of  Scripture  support  for  the  doc- 
trine ? 

(3.)  How  is  it  contrary  to  consciousness  ? 

(4.)  How,  to  Scripture? 

(5.)  How  does  it  subvert  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity? 

(6.)  How  is  it  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  Christ's  sinlessness  ? 

(7.)  "What  are  the  philosophical  objections  to  this  theory? 

2c?.  Arguments  against  its  Application. — What  facts  is  this  theory 
designed  to  explain? 

(1.)  Show  that  this  explanation  is  unsatisfactory. 

(2.)  What  is  the  inherent  absurdity  of  this  theory? 

(3.)  What  is  the  argument  against  it,  from  its  neglect  to  assign 
any  reason  why  we  are  not  responsible  for  the  sin  of  Eve  ? 
or  for  Adam's  subsequent  sins? 

(4.)  What  argument  may  be  derived  from  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Romans  ? 

(5.)  How  may  this  be  shown  to  be  a  purely  philosophic  theory? 

What  is  the  true  relation  of  philosophy  to  theology  ? 


76  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

II.   ORIGINAL  SIN. 

What  are  the  effects  of  Adam's  transgression  ? 
What  is  original  sin  ? 
Why  is  it  called  original? 

/.  ITS  NATURE. 

§  1.  Erroneous  Views. 
(1.)  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  original  sin? 
(2.)  What  is  the  view  of  original  sin,  which  makes  it  physical  in 

its  nature?  and  by  whom  has  it  been  held? 
(3.)  What   is   the    doctrine   which    makes    original   sin   purely 

negative  ? 
(4.)  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine? 
What  distinction  do  some  orthodox   theologians  make  between 

vitium  and  peccatura  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it? 
(5.)  What  is  the  doctrine  which  lowers  the  degree  of  original 

corruption? 
(6.)  What  is  the  doctrine  which  denies  that  it  affects  the  whole 

man? 

§  2.  The  True  View. 

What  is  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  stated  in  the  symbols  of 

the  Lutheran  and  lleformed  churches  ? 
According  to  those  standards,  is  original  sin  a  corruption  of  the 

soul's  substance?  or  an  essential  element  infused  into  the 

soul? 
What  five  elements  are  included  in  the   orthodox  doctrine  of 

original  sin  ? 

//.  PROOF. 

§  1.  That  Depravity  is  Universal. 

(1.)  How  do  the  Scriptures  assert,  assume,  and  prove  the  univer- 
sality of  sin  ? 
(2.)  How  does  experience  teach  that  all  men  are  sinners  ? 

§  2.  That  Depravity  is  Total. 
What  is  meant  by  total  depravity — negatively  and  affirmatively  ? 
(1.)  How  do  the  fruits  of  the  corruption  which  is  in  man,  show 
that  this  corruption  is  entire? 


ORIGINAL    SIX.  77 

(2.)  How  is  this  proved  from  the   enmity   of  the  human   heart 

against  God? 
(8.)  How,  from  the  universal  rejection  of  tlie  Saviour  ? 
(4.)  How,  from  the  incurable   nature    of  the  depravity  of  the 

race? 
(5.)  How,  from  Christian  experience? 

§  3.  That  Depravity  is  Inborn. 

What  are  the  facts  as  to  the  early  manifestation  of  corruption  in 
children  ? 

To  what  conclusion  do  these  facts  inevitably  lead? 

What  are  the  three  erroneous  theories  devised  to  account  for 
them?  and  how  may  they  be  answered? 

(1.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  men  are  by  nature  sinners, 
from  Matt.  vii.  16 — 19? 

How,  from  the  fifty-first  Psalm?  Job  xi.  12;  xiv.  4? 

How,  from  John  iii.  6? 

How,  from  Eph.  ii.  3  ? 

How,  from  Rom.  V.  12,  20? 

(2.)  How  is  this  doctrine  involved  in  the  scriptural  descriptions 
of  the  state  of  man  since  the  fall  ? 

(3.)  How  does  it  follow,  from  the  universal  necessity  of  redemp- 
tion ? 

What  erroneous  view  of  redemption  is  held  by  those  who  deny 
original  sin,  and  believe  in  infant  salvation  ?  and  how  may 
it  be  disproved? 

(4.)  How  is  the  doctrine  of  innate  depravity  involved  in  the  uni- 
versal necessity  of  regeneration  ? 

How  is  it  proved  that  infants  need  regeneration  ? 

(5.)  How  does  it  follow,  from  the  universality  of  death  ? 

How  may  it  be  proved  that  death  is  the  penalty? 

(0.)  What  argument  for  the  doctrine  of  innate  depravity  is  derived 
from  common  consent? 

III.   OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

1.  How  may  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  be  proved  to  be  con- 

sistent with  the  nature  of  sin  ? 

2.  And  with  the  justice  of  God? 

3.  And  with  the  liberty  of  man  ? 

11 


78  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOOY. 


III.   INABILITY. 

Symbolic  Statements. 

1.  Pelagian. — What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  the  ability  of 

man,  since  the  fall  ? 

2.  Semi  Pelagian.— (1.)  What,  the  Semi  Pelagian  ?  (2.)  What, 

the  liomish  ?  (3.)  What,  the  Arminian  ? 

3.  AuGUSTlNiAN. — What  is  the  Augustinian  doctrine  ? 
(1.)  How  is  that  doctrine  stated  in  the  Lutheran  symbols? 
(2.)  How,  in  the  Reformed  symbols? 

/.   THE  NATURE  OF  INABILITY. 

§  1.  Negatively. 

What  are  the  negations  contained  in  the  Augustinian  statements 
of  the  doctrine  of  inability?  (1)  as  to  the  rational  facul- 
ties ?  (2)  the  power  of  self-determination  ?  (3)  con- 
science?   (4)  liberty? 

§  2.  Affirmatively. 

1.  Spiritual. — What  are  the  "things  of  the  Spirit"  which  sin- 

ners are  said  to  be  unable  to  receive  ? 

2.  Natural. — How  far  is  this  inability  natural  ? 

3.  Moral. — How  far  is  it  moral  ? 

What  is  the  popular  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability 

and  inability? 
AVhat  are  the  objections  to  that  distinction,  and  to  the  terms  in 


which  it  is 

11.   PROOF  OF  INABILITY. 

(1.)  What  is  the  argument  for  the  Augustinian  doctrine  derived 

from  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  never  assert  nor  appeal 

to  the  ability  of  men  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  those  passages  which  directly  assert  the  sinner's 

inability? 
(3.)  What,  from  those  which  assert  that  this  disability  is  not 

merely  disinclination  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  original  sin? 


INABILITY.  79 

What,  from  the  uniform  ascription  of  all  good  in  man  to  the  Holy 

Spirit  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  consciousness  ? 
(6.)  What,  from  experience  ':* 
(7.)  What,  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  concerning  election 

and  efficacious  grace  ? 
(8.)  What,  from  the  testimony  of  the  church? 

III.   OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

1.  What  is  the  objection  that  this    doctrine  destroys    responsi- 

bility? 
Why  is  a  man  responsible  for  his  external  acts  ? 
Why,  for  his  volitions  ? 
Why,  for  his  affections  ? 
How  is  this  the  turning  point  in  the  controversy? 

2.  How  show  that  the  doctrine  of  inability , does  not  naturally 

lead  to  the  neglect  of  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace  ? 

3.  How  show  that  it  does  not  lead  to  delay,  idly  awaiting  God's 

time  ? 


IV.  FREEDOM  OF  THE  WILL 

[Dr.  Hodge  omitted  the  consideration  of  this  topic,  in  lecturin.i 
to  the  Class  of  18G5.] 


BOOK  THIRD  i-SOTEROLOGY. 


THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

Why  is  the  plan  of  salvation  exhibited  under  the  form  of  a  cove- 
nant ? 
Why  is  it  called  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 

/.   THE  REMONSTRANT  THEORY. 

1.  Stated. — (1.)  According  to  the  Arminians,  who  are  the  parties 

in  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  promise? 
(3.)  What  the  condition  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  How  does  this  view  contradict  the  Scripture 

doctrine  of  total  depravity  and  inability? 
(2.)  How,  the  doctrines  of  personal  election  and  efficacious  grace? 
(3.)  How,  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  salvation? 

//.  THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINE. 
[L]  FIRST  FORM.— ONE  COVENANT. 

1.  Stated. — (1.)  According  to  the  common  view,  who  are  the 

parties  in  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  promise  ? 
(3.)  What  the  condition  ? 

2.  Objections. — What   objections   are   there   to   this  mode  of 

representation  ? 

[TI.]    SECOND   FORM.— TWO  COVENANTS. 
§.  1.  The  Covenant  op  Redemption. 
(1.)  In  the  covenant  of  redemption,  who  are  the  parties? 
(2.)  What  is  the  promise? 
(3.)  What  the  condition  ? 
[80] 


THE   COVENANT    OF   GRACE. 


81 


§  2.  The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

(1.)  In  the  covenant  of  grace,  who  are  tlie  parties':' 

(2.)  AVhat  is  the  promise  ? 

(3.)  What  the  condition  ? 

What  are  the  diiferent  senses  of  the  word  "condition?"  and  in 
what  sense  are  faith  and  repentance  conditions  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  '^ 

[III.]    IDENTITY  OF  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

§  1.  One  Covenant. 

1st.  One  Promkc.—Uo\f  may  the  identity  of  the  promise  in  thf 

covenant  of  grace,  under  all  dispensations,  be  proved  r 
2'1.    One  M'diitor. — How  may  it  be  proved  thit  under  all  dis- 
pensations, Christ  has  been  the  Mediator  ? 
3(/.  One  Condition.— Rovf  prove  that  faith  has  always  been  the 
condition  of  salvation  i* 

§  2.  Two  Dispensations. 

1.  Old  Testament. — (1.)  How  was  the  covenant  revealed  from 

Adam  to  Abraham  ? 
(2.)  How,  from  Abraham  to  Moses? 
(3.)  How,  from  Moses  to  Christ? 

Under  what  three  aspects  may  the  covenant  from  Sinai  be  viewed? 
What  are  the  different  representations  of  that  covenant   given  in 

the  New  Testament? 
How  are  those  different  representations  to  be  reconciled? 

2.  New  Testament. — What  arc  the  principal  points  of  distinc- 

tion between  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  dispensations? 

Romanist  View  of  the  Old  Dlxpensaflon. 
What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  salvation  of  believers  un<ler 

the  old  dispensation  ? 
How  may  that  doctrine  be  disproved  ? 


82  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


PART  I.    THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


I.   CHRIST'S  MESSIAHSHIP. 

§  1.  The  Messiah  has  Come. 

(1.)    How   may  the    coming  of    the    Messiah   be   proved   from 

Gen.  xlix.  10? 
(2.)  How,  from  Dan.  ix.  24—27? 
(3.)  How,  from  Hag.  ii.  6—9  and  Mai.  iii.  1  ? 
(4.)  What  were  the  two  great  signs  of  Messiah's  advent  predicted 

repeatedly  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

§  2.   Jesus  is  the  Messiah. 

(1.)  What  argument  to  establish  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  Messiah- 
ship,  from  the  time  of  his  birth  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  place  of  his  birth  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  his  family  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  the  manner  of  his  birth? 
(5.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  he  was  preceded  by  a  forerunner? 


11.   CHRIST'S  PERSON. 

/.   THE  DOCTRINE. 
[I.]  CHRIST'S  TWO  NATURES. 
§  1.   His  Humanity. 
What  is  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  Christ's  human  nature  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  he  had  a  true  body? 
How,  that  he  had  a  reasonable  soul  ? 
What  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  completeness  of  a  reasonable  soul  i 

§  2.   His  Divinity. 
How  is  it  proved  that  Christ  had  a  true  divine  nature  ? 


CHRIST  S   PERSON.  83 

[II.]  CHRIST'S  ONE  PERSON. 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  Christ  was  one  person  ? 
IIow,  that  he  was  a  divine  person  ? 

The  Hypostatical  Union  of  Natures. 
State  the  arguments  for  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  derived 

from  1  John  i.  3  ?  1  Tim.  iii.  16  ?  Rom.  i.  3,  and  ix.  9 — 5? 

Phil.  ii.  6—11?  Heb.  ii.  4? 
What  are  the  three  classes  into  which  the  acts  of  Christ  are  dis- 
tributable?    (1.)   As   Thcanthropos.     Heb.  i.  3.     Col.  i. 

13,  14.     Heb.  ix.  14.     1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6.     (2.)  Acts  xx.  28. 

Rom.  viii.  32.     1  Cor.  ii.  8.     1  Cor.  xv.  47.     (3.)  John 

iii.  13,  vi.  62.     Rom.  ix.  5. 
Quote  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  Christ  is  designated  from  a 

single  nature,  where  the  predicates  belong  to  the  whole 

person.     John  viii.  58,  xi.  35. 
How  may  this  subject  be  illustrated  from  the  union  of  soul  and 

body  in  a  man  ? 

II.  SYMBOLIC  STATEMENTS  OF  THIS 
DOCTRINE. 

\st.  Con/essio  Helvetica  Posterior,  xi.  §  2. 

'M.  Westminster  Confession,  Chap.  viii.  §  2. 

'Sd.  Athanasian  Creed. 

Ath.  Augshurgh  Confession,  Cliap.  iii.  par^  1. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  nature"  as  used  in  relation  to 

this  subject? 
What  is  included  in  the  idea  of  personality? 
How  can  Christ's  soul  possess  intelligence  and  will,  and  yet  not 

personality  ? 
What  is  the  relation  of  the  two  natures,  or  what  is  called  the 

hypostatical  union  ? 
What  is  the  effect  of  the  hypostatical  union  upon  the  human 

nature  of  Christ? 
.")///.   Early  Creeds. — In  what  form  was  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 

person  presented  in  the  early  church  ? 

///.  HISTORY  OF  ERROR. 
[I.]  A.  D.  70—681. 
1.  The  Ebionites. — Who  were  the  Ebionites? 
What  was  their  doctrine  concerning  Christ's  person  ? 


84  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

2.  The   Nazarenes. — IIow   did   the   Ebionites  and  Nazarenes 

differ? 

3.  The  Docet^. — Who  were  the  Docctae?  and  why  so  called? 
What  was  their  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ? 

What  gave  rise  to  that  doctrine  ? 

4.  AroLLiNARis. — What  was  the  Apollinarian  doctrine? 

5.  Nestorius. — What  was  the  Nestorian  doctrine? 
When  and  where  was  that  doctrine  condemned  ? 

6.  Eutychianism. — 1st.  The  Monophysite  Controversy. 

What  was  the  Eutychian  doctrine  ?  and  its  history  ?  (Council  of 
Constantinople,  448.     Ephesus,  449.     Chalcedon,  451.) 

2(7.  The  Monotlielite  Controversy. — What  was  the  history  of  the 
Monothelite  controversy?  and  when  and  where  was  it 
decided  ? 

[II.]   FROM  THE  TRULLAN  COUNCIL  TO  THE 
REFORMATION. 

[III.]  THE  REFORMATION. 
§  1.    The   Lutheran   Doctrine. 

1.  Stated. — In  what  points  does  the  Lutheran  doctrine  agree 

with  the  Reformed  ? 
How  does  it  dififer  from  it  as  to  the  communicatio  proprietatum  ? 

2.  Refuted. — (1.)  What  was  the  historical  origin  of  this  doc- 

trine ? 
(2.)  Upon  what  false  assumption  is  it  based? 
(3.)  How  does  it  involve  a  contradiction  ? 
(4.)  How  does  it  tend  to  Eutychianism? 
(5.)  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  without  scriptural  foundation  ? 

[IV.]   FROM  THE  REFORMATION  TO  THE  PRESENT 
TIME. 

1.    SoCINIANISM. — 2.    SUPERNATURALISM. 3.    RATIONALISM. — 

4.  Pantheism. — 5.  Schleiermacheu. 


Christ's  office,  as  prophet — as  priest.  85 


PART  II.   THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST. 


What  was  the  design  of  the  incarnation  ? 

What  is  salvation  ? 

What  has  Christ  done,  to  effect  our  salvation? 

CHRIST  A  MEDIATOR. 

§  1.  In  what  senses  is  Christ  our  Mediator? 

§  2.  What   are   Christ's   qualifications   for   acting  as 
Mediator  ? 

Is  Christ  mediator  as  to  both  natures  ? 

Into  what  three  classes  do  theologians  divide  the  acts  of  Christ? 

How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  work  of  redemption  is  a  thean- 

thropic  act  ? 

§  3.  Is  Christ  the  only  Mediator  ? 
In  what  sense,  and  on  what  ground,  do  Romanists  regard  saints  as 

mediators  ? 


I.   CHRIST'S  OFFICES. 
I.   CHRIST'S  OFFICE,  AS  PROPHET. 

1.  What  is  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  word  "prophet?" 

2.  How  does  Christ  execute  the  office  of  a  prophet  ? 

II.  CHRIST'S  OFFICE,  AS  PRIEST. 

I.   IN  WHAT  SENSE  IS  CHRIST  OUR  PRIEST? 
§  1.  Definition  of  a  Priest. 
What  is  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  word  "  priest  ?" 
What  inferences  are   drawn  from  this    definition  by  those  who 

claim  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  a  priesthood  ? 
How  may  it  be  shown  that  ministers  are  not  priests? 
12 


86  systematic  theology. 

§  2.  Christ  a  real  Priest. 

1.  Denied. — By  whom    is    the    reality  of    Christ's    priesthood 

denied  ? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  Christ  was  truly  a 

priest,  from  the  titles  ascribed  to  him  in  Scripture  ? 
(2.)   How,  from  his  qualifications  for  priestly  office  ? 
(3.)  How,  from  the  functions  exercised  by  him  ? 
(4.)  How,  from  the  effect  of  his  mediatorial  work  ? 

§  3.  Nature  of  Christ's  Priesthood. 

1.  Not  Levitical. — How  did  Christ's  priesthood  differ  from  the 

Levitical  (1)  as  to  its  origin  ?  (2)  as  to  the  place  in  which 
it  was  exercised  ?  (3)  as  to  ritual  character  ?  (4)  as  to  its 
-,  relation  to  the  old  covenant  ? 

2.  After  the  Order  of  Melchizedek. — In  what  respects  was 

Melchizedek  a  type  of  Christ  ? 
How  was  Christ's  priesthood  superior  to  the  Levitical  (1)  in  point 
of  blessings  secured  by  it 't  (2)  in  itself  considered  ? 


11.   HOW  DOES  CHRIST  EXECUTE  THE  OFFICE  OF 
PRIEST? 

FIRST.    THE   SATISFACTION  OF  JUSTICE. 

.What  facts  connected  with  the  atonement  are  universally  admitted 

by  Christians  ? 
What  are  the  disputed  points  on  this  subject,  (1)  as  to  the  nature 

of  the  reconciliation  effected  by  Christ's  death  ?  (2)  as  to 

the  ground  of  reconciliation  in  God  ? 

Definitions. 

1.  Atonement. — What   are   the   different   senses   of  the  word 

"  atonement?" 
What  are  the  objections  to  it  as  expressing  the  priestly  work  of 
Christ  ? 

2.  Satisfaction. — What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  satisfac- 

tion?" 
In  what  sense  is  Christ's  work  a  satisfaction  ? 
In  what  does  his  satisfaction  consist  ? 
What  are  the  points  of  difference  between  pecuniary  and  legal 

satisfaction  ? 


Christ's  office,  as  priest.  87 

3.  Penalty. — "What  is  the  precise  meaning  of  the  words  '-punish- 

ment," "penal,"  and  '•penahy':'" 
In  what  sense  were  the  sufferings  of  Christ  penal  ? 

4.  Substitution,  Vicarious. — What  is  the  sense  of  the  words 

"  substitution"  and  "  vicarious  ?" 
In  what  sense  were  the  sufferings  of  Christ  vicarious  ? 

5.  Expiation,    Purification,    Propitiation. — What  is   the 

sense  of  the  words  ''  expiate,"  '■  purify,"  and  "  propitiated' 
What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  "  guilt  ?" 
In  what  sense  did  Christ  bear  our  guilt? 

/.  NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT 

§  1.  Stated.  ^ 

1.  Symbolic  Statements. — Augsburg  Conf.  p.  93;   Cat.  Maj. 

p.  495;  Form  of  Concord,  p.  684;  Con.  Helv.  §  15,  p.  484; 
Form.  Consens.  Hdv.  xv.  734;  HeUMh.  Cat.  p.  401; 
Westm.  Conf.  c.  viii.  1. 

2.  Essential  Points. — What  are  the  essential  points  included 

in  the  statements  as  to  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  in  the 
standards  of  the  Protestant  church 't  {Forensic — tom- 
plete  — twofold — vicarious . ) 

§  2.  Proved. 

1.  Nature  of  God. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  in  favour  of 

this  doctrine  derived  from  the  justice  of  God  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  immutability  of  the  law? 
(3.)  What,  from  the  veracity  of  God  ? 

2.  Declarations   of  Scripture.— r(l.)  What  argument  from 

those  passages  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  borne  our 

sins? 
(2.)  What,  from  those  which  set  him  forth  as  a  sacrifice  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  those  which  speak  of  our  redemption  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  those  which  ascribe  our  salvation  to  the  blood, 

cross,  and  death  of  Christ  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  those  which  describe  the  effects  of  Christ's  death? 

3.  Other   Doctrines. — (1.)    How   does   the   doctrine   of   the 

necessity  of  Chrisfs  death  involve  the  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion ? 
(2.)  How  is  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  involved  in  the  doctrine 
of  justification  ? 


ob  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

(3.)  How,  in  tlie  doctrine  of  deliverance  from  the  law? 
(-4.)  How,  in  the  doctrine  of  union  with  Christ? 
§  3.  Observations. 

(1.)  How  may  it  be  shown  that  this  doctrine  does  not  ascribe  vin- 

dictiveness  to  God  ? 
(2.)  How  can  it  be  reconciled  with  the  grace  of  the  gospel  ? 
(3.)  How,  with  the  fact  that  Christ's  obedience  was  due  from 

himself  and  for  himself? 
(4.)  Why  was  it  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  suffer  eternal  death, 

in  order  to  redeem  us  ? 
(5.)  How  could  the  finite  sufi"erings  of  Christ  atone  for  the  sins 

of  the  world  ? 
(6.)  How  can  the  doctrine  of  satisfection  be  reconciled  with  the 
•impossibility  of  any  transfer  of  guilt  ? 

II.  NECESSITY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

§  1.  Stated. 

1.  Erroneous  Views. — What  are  the  different  views  as  to  the 

necessity  of  a  satisfaction  for  sin,  in  order  to  forgiveness  ? 

2.  The    True  View.— What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 

church  on  that  point  ? 

§  2.  Proved. 
(1.)  How  is  the  real  necessity  of  the  atonement  manifest  from  the 

greatness  of  the  sacrifice  ? 
(2.)  How,  from  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  especially  Gal.  ii. 

21,  and  iii.  21  ? 
(3.)  How,  from  the  justice  of  God  ? 
(4.)  How,  from  the  truth  of  G  od  ? 
(5.)  What  was  the  governmental  necessity  of  the  atonement? 

///.  PERFECTION  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 
§  1.  Its  Intrinsic  Value. 

Isf.  Does  God  accept  the  sufferings:  of  Christ,  instead  of  ours,  on 
account  of  their  intrinsic  value  ? 

1.  Negative  Answers. — Dims  Scofus,  in  his  reply  to  Avschn, 
Cur  Dens  Homo  ?  'Limhorch,  Apol.  Thes.  xxi.  G ;  Curcel- 
Iseus,  Inst.  5.  19,  25. 


CHRIST  S   OFFICE,    AS    PRIEST.  89 

2.  Affirmative  Answers. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Latin, 
Lutheran,  and  lleformed  churches  on  this  poiut? 

%l.    MVhat  gives  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  their  value  f 

1.  Negatively. — (1.)   How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  divine 

nature  did  not  suffer  ? 
(2.)  How,  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  infinite  ? 

2.  Affirmatively — (1.)    How  f^r  was  the  degree  of  Chri.st'.s 

sufferings  important  ? 
(2.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  dignity  of  Christ's  person  is 
the  ground  of  the  infinite  merit  of  his  sufferings  ? 

§  2.  Its  Application  or  Effect. 

1.  Romish  Doctrine. — "What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the 

application  of  the  atonement  ? 
What  are  its  modifications  ? 
AVhat  are  the  objections  to  this  doctrine  ? 

2.  Protestant  Doctrine. — What  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture 

as  to  the  efficacy  of  atonement  ? 

IV.  EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

(1.)  How  far  is  the  nature  of  the  atonement  involved  in  the  ques- 
tion of  its  extent  ? 
(2.)  How  far  its  value  ? 

(3.)  How  far,  its  applicability  or  application  ? 
(4.)  What  is  the  precise  point  in  dispute  on  this  subject  ? 

§  1.  The  Lutheran  View. 

What  was  the  design  of  Christ's  death,  according  to  the  Lutheran 
system  ? 

§  2.  The  Arminian  View. 

What,  according  to  the  Arminian  System  ? 

§  3.  The  Governmental  Theory. 

What,  according  to  the  governmental  theory  ? 

§  4.  The  Reformed  View. 
1.  Stated. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  cluirch,  as  to 
the  design  of  Christ's  death  ? 


90  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  What  argument,  to  prove  that  Christ's  death 

had  a  special  reference  to  the  elect,  may  be  derived  from 

the  consistency  of  this  view  with  the  other  particulars  in 

the  scheme  of  redemption  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  na|.ure  of  the  covenant  of  redemption  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  the  doctrine  of  election  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  God's  special  love  to  his  own  people  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  those  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  special 

design  of  Christ's  death  is  stated  ? 
(6.)  What,  from  the  effects  of  Christ's  death  ? 
(7.)  What,  from  the  Scripture  doctrine  concerning  the  union  of 

Christ  and  his  people  ? 

(8.)  What,  from  the  fact  that  the  Reformed  doctrine  includes  and 
harmonizes  all  the  truths  contained  in  the  other  sys- 
tems ? 

On  what  ground  is  the  gospel  offered  to  all  men  ? 

3.  Objections    Answered. — How   are   those   passages   to   be 

explained,  which  speak  of  Christ's  bearing  the  sins  of  the 
world,  dying  for  all  men,  or  of  those  perishing  for  whom 
Christ  died  ? 

What  is  the  difference  between  saying  that  Christ  died  for  all 
men,  and  saying  that  he  died  equally  for  all  men  ? 


[I.]   CLASSIFICATION  OF  THEORIES  CONCERNING 
THE  ATONEMENT. 

What  are  the  various  ends  which,  in  Scripture,  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  is  said  to  answer  ? 

§  1.    SOCINIAN. 

1.  Stated. — 1st.  Pure  Socinian. — What  is  the  Socinian  view  of 

the  atonement  ? 

2d.   Schleiermacher. — What  is  Schleiermacher's  view  ? 

3c?.  Symholical. — What  is  the  symbolical  or  allegorical  view  ? 

In  what  point  do  all  these  theories  agree  ? 

2.  Refuted. — How  may  it  be  shown  that   this  whole   theory 

denies  what  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  atonement? 


Christ's  office,  as  priest.  91 

§  2.  Governmental. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  governnieatal  view  of  the  nature  of  the 

atonement  ? 

2.  History. — What  is  the  history  of  that  view  ? 

3.  Refufed. — (1.)   What   argument   against  the    governmental 

theory,  from  the  false  assumptions  involved  in  it? 
(2.)  What,  from  its  unscriptural  character  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  its  inconsistency  with  the  doctrine  of  justification 

by  faith  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  its  tendency? 

§  3.  Catholic. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  catholic  or  common  doctrine  on  this 

subject? 

2.  Proved. — What  are  the  general  considerations  in  its  favor  ? 

[II.]    HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 
ATONEMENT. 

1.  Patristic  Period. — What  peculiar  view  of  the  atonement 

was  presented  by  many  of  the   Fathers,  founded  on  the 
idea  that  it  was  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan  ? 

2.  Scholastic  Period. — What  doctrine  was  taught  by  Anselm, 

in  his  work,  Ciir  Dens  Homo  ? 
By  whom  was  that  doctrine  defended  ?  and  by  whom  assailed  ? 

3.  The  Reformation. — How  do  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 

agree  on  this  subject? 

4.  Subsequent  Period. — What  errors  have  been  advocated  with 

regard  to  the  atonement,  since  the  Reformation  ? 


SECOND.     INTERCESSION. 

(1.)  What  are  Scripture  expressions,  by  which  the  intercession 

of  Christ  is  set  forth  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  nature  of  that  intercession  ?  figurative  or  real  ? 

Is  it  verbal  ? 
(3.)  For  whom  does  Christ  intercede  ? 


92  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

III.   CHRIST'S  OFFICE  AS  KING. 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST. 
§  1.  Its  Extent. 

What  three  forms  of  dominion  are  attributed  to  Christ  in  the 

Scriptures  ? 
What  is  the  distinction  between  his  kingdom  of  power,  of  grace, 

and  of  glory ! 

§  2.  Present  or  Future. 

What  is  the  origin  of  the  expressions,  "kingdom  of  God,"  "king- 
dom of  Christ,"  and  "kingdom  of  heaven?" 

What  are  the  three  different  senses  in  which  those  expressions 
are  used  in  Scripture  ? 

What  is  the  difference  between  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  the 
church  ? 

§  3.  Its  Spirituality. 

1.  Not  of  this  World. — In  what  three  senses  is  Christ's  king- 

dom "  not  of  this  world  ?" 

2.  Spiritual. — In  what  senses  is  it  spiritual  ? 

§  4.  Christ  its  only  Head. 

What  is  included  in  the  doctrine  that  Christ  is  the  only  head  of 
the  church  ? 

§  5.  Its  Administration. 

How  is  Christ's  kingdom  administered  ? 

§  6.  Its  Duration. 

What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  duration  of  Christ's  king- 
dom ? 


II.    CHRIST'S  ESTATES. 


/.  HUMILIATION. 

§  1,  The  Lutheran  View. 

What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  concerning  the  humiliation  of 
Christ  ? 


christ  s  estates.  [)6 

§  2.  The  Reformed  View. 
What  is  included  in  Christ's  humiliation  ? 
What  was  the  original  import  of  the  expression,  "  descended  into 

hell  ?" 
What  are  the  four  interpretations  of  that  article  in  the  creed  ? 
What  bearing  have  Psa.  xvi.  10,  Eph.  iv.  9,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  and 

1  Peter  iii.  19,  on  this  subject? 

//.  EXALTATION. 

What  is  included  in  the  exaltation  of  Christ  ? 
What  is  the  proof  of  Christ's  resurrection  ? 
By  whose  power  did  he  rise  ? 


13 


9i  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY, 


III.    VOCATION. 


What  is  the  usap;e  of  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  words 
xa2sco,  xlr^aiz^  and  xhjzo^l 

I.   THE  GALL  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

V/hat  is  meant  by  the  external  call  ? 
What  is  included  in  it? 

1.  To  ALL  Men. — How  may  it  be  proved  that  it  is  addressed  to 

all  men,  and  not  exclusively  to  the  elect  ? 
How  can  this  general  call  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  man's 
inability,  and  not  of  election  ? 

2.  Only  in  the  GIospel. — How   may   it   be  proved  that   the 

knowledge  of  Christ  is  necessary  to  salvation?  (1.)  From 
Scripture  ?  (2.)  From  the  incarnation  and  work  of  Christ? 
(3.)  From  the  command  to  proclaim  the  gospel  ?  (4.)  From 
experience  ? 

//.   EFFECTUAL  GALLING. 

[I.]   PELAGIAN  VIEW. 

What  are  the  Pelagian  and  Rationalistic  doctrines  as  to  vocation? 

[II.]   SEMI-PELAGIAN  VIEW. 

1.  Remonstrant. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Remonstrants? 

2.  Lutheran. — What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  ? 

[III.]   REFORMED  VIEW. 

Symbolic  Statements. — Helv.  Con/.,  Pars  I.,  cap.  ix.^pp.  479, 
481;  Gall.  Conf.,  Art.  xxi.  and  xxv.,  pp.  334,  335;  Can. 
Si/n.  Dord..,  cap.  iii.,  art.  xi.,  p.  710;    West.  Con/.,  ch.  x. 

*  Vocation  \Ya,s  included  nnder  tlie  Work  of  Christ,  rather  than  under 
tlie  Application  of  Christ's  "Work,  in  Dr.  Hodge's  old  arrangement  of  sub- 
jects, because  Christ  calls  by  his  Spirit;  and  the  second  head  was  intended 
t>  include  only  the  believer's  subjective  experience.  In  Dr.  Hodge's  new 
arrangement,  it  is  included  under  the  Application  of  the  Work  of  Christ. 


vocation.  95 

§  1.  It  is  Internal. 

(1.)  IIx)W  may  it  be  proved,  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach  con- 
cerning the  natural  state  of  man,  that  there  is  an  inward 
call  by  the  Spirit,  in  addition  to  the  outward  call  of  the 


(2.)  How,  from  the   ascription    of  conversion,  in  Scripture,  to 

God?    Psa.  li.  10;  John  iii.  5,  vi.  44;  Acts  xvi.  14. 
(3.)  How,  from  the   fact  that  not  all  who   know  the  truth  arc 

regenerated  ? 
(4.)  How,  from  the  command  to  pray  for  the  influence  of  the 

Spirit?    Eph.  i.  15,  19;  Col.  i.  9,  12;  1  Pet.  v.  10. 
(5.)  How,  from  the   distinction  made  in  Scripture,  between  (he 

efficacy  of  the  truth  and  the  influence  of  the  Spirit?  Joh;i 

vi.  44;  ICor.  vi.  7;  1  Tliess.  i.  5,  6. 
(6.)  How,  from  the  necessity  of  divine  influence,  in  order  to  the 

right  apprehension  of  the  truth  ?    Psa.  cxix.  18  ;  Eph.  i. 

17;  Acts  xvi.  14;  1  Cor.  ii.  14 
(7.)  How,  from  those  passages  in  which  a  work  upon  the  heart  is 

spoken  of?    Phil.  ilVS;  2  Thess.  i.  11;  Heb.  xiii.  21. 
(8.)  How,  from  the  character  of  the  terms  employed  to  describe 

this  work  ? 
(9.)  How,  from  experience  ? 

§  2.  It  is  Common  and  Efficacious. 

1.  Common. — 1st.  Defined. — What  is  meant  by  common  grace  ? 
IIow  does  common  grace  differ  from  efficient  grace  ? 

2d.  Proved. — (1.)   How  is  the  Reformed   doctrine    of   common 

grace  proved  from  Scripture  ? 
(2.)  How,  from  experience  ? 

2.  Efficacious. — Isf.  Defined. — What  is  efficacious  grace  ? 
In  what  sense  is  it  irresistible  ? 

Why  is  it  so  called  ? 

2d.  Proved. — (1.)  How  is  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace  proved 

from  from  the  natural  state  of  man  ? 
(2.)  How,  from  the  doctrine  of  election? 
(3  )  How,  from  the  promises  of  God  ? 
(4.)  IIow,  from  the  prayers  which  we  are  taught  in  Scripture  to 

offer  ? 
(5.)  IIow,  from  the  express  declarations  in  Scripture  ? 


»0  systematic  theology. 

§  3.  It  is  Congruous  to  the  Nature  op  Man. 

1.  Stated. — Wtat  is  meant  by  saying  that  grace  is  congruous  to 

the  nature  of  the  soul  ? 
What  is  the  relation  of  the  internal  to  the  external  call  ? 

2.  Proved. — How  is  this  doctrine  proved,  (1)  from  Scripture  ? 

(2)  from  experience  ? 

§  4.  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  op  Grace. 

(1.)  How  is  the  doctrine  of  efficacious  grace  vindicated  from  the 

objection  that  it  supposes  successive  acts  in  God? 
(2.)  How  can  it  be  reconciled  to  human  liberty? 
(3.)  How,  with  human  responsibility? 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GRACE. 

What  are  the  three  comprehensive  forms  of  doctrine  concerning 
grace  and  vocation  ? 

How  are  these  doctrines  concerning  grace  related  to  the  corres- 
ponding views  concerning  sin  ? 

/.  PRIOR  TO  THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

What  was  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  church  on  these  points 

before  the  Pelagian  controversy? 
What  determined  the  form  of  doctrine  in  the  Greek  church  ? 


//.    THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY. 
§  1.   Pelagianism. 
What  was  the  origin  of  the  Pelagian  doctrine? 
What  was  the  doctrine  of  Pelagius  as  to  sin?  ability?  grace?  and 

vocation  ? 
How  was  Pelagianism  received  by  the  church  ? 

§  2.   Augustinianism. 
What  is  the  system  of  Augustine  ? 
How  far  did  that  system  receive  the  sanction  of  the  church  ? 


history  of  the  doctrine  of  grace.  97 

§  3.  Semi-Pelaqianism. 
What  was  the  theory  of  the  Seiui-Pehigians  ? 
What  was  the  historical  origin  of  that  system  ? 

///.    THE  SCHOLASTIC  AGE. 
Into  what  classes  were  the  Schoolmen  divided,  on  this  subject? 

IV.   THE  REFORMATION. 
%  1.   Romanism. 
What  were  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  on  this  subject  r* 
What  was  the  dispute  between  the  Jansenists  and  the  Jesuits? 

§  2.   Protestantism. 

1.  INFORMED  Church. — Which  system  was  adopted  by  the  Re- 

formed church? 

2.  Lutheran  Church. — What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 

church  ? 
What  was  the  Synergistic  controversy  ? 
What  were  the  decisions  of  the  Form  of  Concord  ? 

F.   THE  ARMINIAN  CONTROVERSY. 

What  was  the  origin  of  Arminianism  ? 

What  were  its  five  points  ? 

What  was  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  ? 

What  churches  were  represented  in  that  Synod  and  concerned  in 

its  decisions? 
What  has  been  the  subsequent  history  of  Arminianism? 

VL  MODERN  VIEWS 

What  three  systems  have  prevailed  among  nominal  Calvinists  in 

this  country? 
What  is  the  New  School  system  ? 
What  is  the  New  Haven  doctrine  ? 


98  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


PART  III.   APPLICATION  OF  CHRIST'S  WORK. 


I.    REGENERATION. 

What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  "  regeneration  ?" 

I.  ITS  NATURE. 
[I.]   RATIONALISTIC  THEORY. 

AVhat  is  the  rationalistic  theory  of  the  nature  of  regeneration  ? 

[II.]   RITUALISTIC  THEORY. 

What  is  the  ritualistic  or  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  and 

means  of  regeneration? 
What  are  the  various  opinions  upon  this  subject  entertained  in 

the  English  church  ? 

[III.]   EVANGELICAL  THEORY. 

§  1.   Orthodoxy. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  evan_gelical  doctrine  on  the  subject  of 

regeneration,  as  presented  in  the  symbols  of  the  Presby- 
terian church? 
What  are  the  principal  points  involved  in  the  doctrine? 

2.  Proved. — How  may  be  it  proved  that  regeneration  is  not  a 

physical  change  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  it  is  a  divine,  not  a  human  act  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  whole  man,  and  not  the  heart  only, 

is  the  subject  of  regeneration  ? 
What  is  the  nature  of  habits,  disposition  or  principles  of  grace  ? 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  regeneration  consists  in  the  infusion 

of  such  habits  ? 

3.  Objections. — What  are  the  objections  to  this  view  of  regen- 

eration ?  and  how  may  they  be  answered  ? 

§  2.  Departures  from  Orthodoxy. 
(1.)  What  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Emmons  as  to  regeneration?  and 

the  objections  to  it? 
(2.)  What  is  Prof  Finney's  theory?  and  the  objections  to  it? 


REGENERATION.  99 

What  is  the  New  Haven  theory?  and  the  objections  to  it? 
(3.)  What  is  the  theory  which  confines  regeneration  to  the  affec- 
tions ?  and  the  objections  to  it  ? 

//.   NECESSITY  OF  REGENERATION. 

(1.)  How  is  the  necessity  of  regeneration  an  inevitable  inference 

from  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity? 
(2.)  How  may  it  be  proved,  from  the  nature  of  heaven  ? 
(3.)  How,  from  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture? 


II.  FAITH. 

What  is  FAITH,  in  the  popular  sense  of  the  word  ?  in  its  strict  or 

limited  sense  ? 
How  is  faith  distinguished  (1)  from  sight?  (2)  from  intuition, 

from  knowledge  and  from  opinion  ? 
What  is  RELIGIOUS  faith  ? 
What  is  SAVING  faith  ? 

J.    THE  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE. 

How  i%  saving  faith  defined  in  the  Symbols  of  the  Protestant 
church  ? 

[I.]   ELEMENTS  OF  FAITH. 

§  1.   Knowledge. 

1.  Stated. — (1.)  Does  faith  include  comprehension? 

(2.)  What  is  the  Romanist  distinction  between  "  explicit"  and 

"  implicit"  faith  ? 
How  does  this  differ  from  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  faith  ? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  How  is  the  necessity  of  knowledge  in  order  to 

faith  proved  from  the  very  nature  of  faith  itself? 

(2.)  How,  from  the  effects  ascribed  to  faith  ? 

(3.)  How,  from  the  interchange  of  these  terms  (knowledge  and 
faith)  in  Scripture? 

How  does  the  difference  between  Romanists  and  Protestants  upon 
this  point  modify  the  entire  religious  systems  of  the  respec- 
tive churches? 

§  2.   Assent. 

1.  Stated. — What  is  the  nature  of  the  assent  which  is  included 
in  faith? 


100  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

How  do  Romanists  and  Protestants  differ  on  that  point? 

Wliat  is  the  ground  of  hereditary,  of  historical,  and  of  temporary 

faith? 
What  is  the  ground  of  saving  faith  ?  on  what  kind  of  evidence  is 

the  assent  included  in  it  founded? 
2.  Proved. — How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  demonstration  of  the 

Spirit  is  the  foundation  of  saving  faith? 

§  3.   Trust. 

1.  Stated. — In  what  sense  is  trust  included  in  saving  faith? 
How  do  Romanists  and  Protestants  differ  on  that  point? 

2.  Proved. — How  may  the  Protestant  doctrine  be  established  ? 

[II.]   OBJECT  OF  FAITH. 

What  is  the  object  of  saving  faith? 

What  is  the  distinction  made  by  Protestants  between  general  and 

special,  or  saving  and  justifying  faith? 
How  far  is  Christ  in  all  his  offices  the  object  of  justifying  faith? 

[III.]   THE  EFFECTS  OF  FAITH. 

1.  Union  with  Christ. — What  is  the  nature  of  the  union  with 

Christ  arising  from  faith  ? 

2.  Peace. — What  is  the  nature  of  Christian  peace  ?  and  what  its 

foundation  ? 
Is  assurance  assented  to  faith  ? 
What  are  the  grounds  of  assurance  ? 
Is  assurance  attainable? 

3.  Love  and  Good  Works. — What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  a 

"formed"  and  "unformed"  faith? 
How  is  the  inseparable  connection  between  faith  and  love  proved  ? 

//.   TEE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE. 
[I.]  THE  NATURE  OF  FAITH. 

What  is  the  Romish  view  of  the  nature  of  faith? 

[II.]  THE  OBJECT  OF  FAITH. 

According  to  Romanists,  what  is  the  object  of  faith? 
[III.]  THE  GROUND  OF  FAITH. 
What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  ground  of  faith  ? 


REPENTANCE.  101 

[IV.]   THE  f]FFECTS  OF  FAITH. 

According  to  the  Romanists,  does  faith  alone  justify? 

Does  fiiith  necessarily  involve  justification? 

What  is  the  relation  of  faith  to  other  Christian  graces? 

Docs  faith  produce  peace? 

How  does  this  view  of  faith  account  (1)  for  the  withholding  of 
the  Scriptures,  (2)  the  doctrine  of  reserve  in  preaching, 
(3)  the  symbolical  worship,  and  (4)  the  use  of  an  un- 
known tongue  in  worship,  in  the  Romish  Church? 

What  grace  is  the  instrument  of  salvation,  according  to  the 
Romanists  ? 


III.  REPENTANCE. 

What  are  the  Hebrew  words  usual  to  express  repentance?  and 

what  are  their  respective  significations  ? 
What  is  the  difierence  between  fjLsrauoea  and  /usza/jiehia  ? 

/.   TEE  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE. 
[I.]   NATURE  OF  REPENTANCE. 

§  1.   Definitions. 
(1.)  What  is  the  Lutheran  definition  of  repentance? 
(2.)  What  was  Calvin's  definition  ? 
(3.)  How  is  it  defined  in  our  catechism? 
According  to  that  definition,  what  is  included  in  repentance? 

§  2.   Analysis. 

1.  Exercises  which  flow  from  the  Apprehension  of  God's 

Justice. — What  is  the  nature  of  the  conviction  of  sin  in- 
cluded in  repentance? 

2.  Of  God's  Holiness. — What  emotions  are  awakened  in  the 

soul  which  apprehends  the  holiness  of  God? 
How  do  these  feelings  naturally  express  themselves? 
How  far  is  the  confession  of  sin  necessary  ? 
What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  auricular  confession  ? 
What  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  ? 
14 


102  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

3.  Of  God's  Mercy. — What  is  the  nature  of  the  grief  and  hatred 

of  sin  experienced  by  the  true  penitent  ? 
How  far  is  the  apprehension  of  mercy  necessary  to  repentance  ? 

[II.]   EVIDENCES   OF  REPENTANCE. 

What  are  the  evidences  of  genuine  repentance? 

//.   TEE  BOMISH  DOCTRINE. 

What  is  the  sacrament  of  penance,  according  to  Romanists  ? 
What  is  the  design  of  that  sacrament  ? 
Of  what  does  it  consist  ? 

§  1.   On  the  part  of  the  Penitent. 

1.  Contrition. — What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  contrition  ? 

(1)  perfect?  (2)  initial ?  (3)  imperfect? 

2.  Confession. — What,  as  to  confession  ? 

3.  Satisfaction. — What,  as  to  satisfaction  ?     What,  as  to  in- 

dulgence? 

§  2.  On  the  part  op  the  Priest. 
What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  sacerdatal  absolution  ? 


IV.   JUSTIFICATION. 

/.   THE  COMMON  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINE. 

How  is  the  doctrine  of  justification  stated  in  the  symbols  of  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches? 

[I  ]  NATURE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 
§  1.  It  is  a  Forensic  Act. 

1.  Stated. — How  is  a  forensic  act  distinguished  from  an  execu- 

tive act? 
How,  from  an  efficient  act  ? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  What  argument  to  prove  that  justification  is  a 

judical  act  may  be  derived  from  the  uniform  meaning  in 

Scripture  of  the  word  dcxaeoo)  ? 
(2.)  From  those  passages  in  which  men  are  said  to  be  justified 

gratuitously  ? 
(3.)  From  analogous  figurative  expressions  in  Scripture  ? 


JUSTIFICATION.  lOM 

(4.)  From  the  antithesis  between  justification  and  condemnation? 
(5.)  From  equivalent  Scripture  expressions? 
(6.)  From  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture? 

(7.)  From  the  substitution  of  the  word  "sanctify"  for  "justify" 
in  those  passages  in  which  the  word  "justify"  occurs? 

§  2.  It  includes  Imputation  of  Hrhiteousness. 

1.  Stated. — Does  justification  signify  simple  pardon? 

2.  Proved. — (1.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  justification  in- 

cludes a  declaration  of  righteousness,  from  the  universal 
signification  of  the  word? 

(2.)  What  error  does  the  opposite  doctrine  involve? 

(3.)  How  are  the  representations  of  Scripture  as  to  the  ground  of 
justification  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  justification 
is  simply  pardon  ? 

(4.)  What  argument  may  be  derived  from  the  efiects  of  justifi- 
cation ? 

[II.]   GROUND  0^  JUSTIFICATION. 

§  1.  Not  Works. 

1.  Pelagianism. — How  do  Pelagians  understand  the  declaration 

that  justification  is  "not  of  works?" 

2.  Arminanism. — "What  works  do  Arminians  exclude? 

3.  Romanism; — What  works  do  Romanists  exclude? 

4.  Protestantism. — How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Scriptures 

exclude  all  works  from  being  the  ground  of  justification? 
(1.)  From  the  whole  course  of  Paul's  argument? 
(2.)  From  the  character  of  the  law  of  which  he  speaks? 
(3.)  From  the  antithesis  between  works  and  faith  ? 
(4.)  From  the  declaration  that  justification  is  gratuitous? 
(5.)  From  Christian  experience? 

§  2.  But  the  Righteousness  of  Christ. 

1.  Stated. — (1  )  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  justification?  Rom.  iii.  25, 
v.  18,  19;  1  Cor.  i.  30 ;  2  Cor.  v.  21. 

(2.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  in- 
cludes his  active  as  well  as  passive  obedience?  Gal.  iv.  4; 
Rom.  V.  18. 

(3.)  In  what  sense  is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  us? 


104  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY.  \ 

What  is  the  ground  of  its  imputation  ?  or  the  nature  of  the  union 
between  Christ  and  the  believer? 

What  is  the  proof  of  its  imputation  ?  Rom.  iv.  6,  v.  18,  19  ; 
2  Cor.  V.  21. 

2.  Objections. — (1.)  How  is  the  objection  to  be  answered  that 
the  Protestant  doctrine  makes  justification  merely  outward  ? 

(2.)  How,  that  it  represents  the  believer  as  being  as  righteous  as 
Christ? 

(3.)  How,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  due  for  himself? 

(4.)   How,  that  this  doctrine  destroys  the  grace  of  the  gospel  ? 

(5.)  How,  that  it  renders  good  works  unnecessary? 

(6.)  How,  that  the  elect  come  into  the  world  under  condemna- 
tion? 

(7.)  How,  that  believers  are  punished  after  justification  ? 

[III.]  MEANS  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

What  do  the  Romanists  make  the  means  of  justification? 
What  is  the  Arminian  view  as  to  the  relation  of  faith  to  justifi- 
cation ? 
What  is  the  common  Protestant  view  ? 

How  is  it  proved  that  faith  is  the  instrument  of  justification  ? 
What  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith? 

//.  PBOTESTANT  DEPARTURES   FROM   THE 

TRUE  DOCTRINE. 

[1.]   PISCATOR. 

How  did  Piscator  difi'er  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church 
(1)  as  to  the  nature,  and  (2)  as  to  the  ground,  of  justifi- 
cation ? 

How  were  his  innovations  received? 

[II.]   ARMINIANISM. 

§  1.  Stated. 
What  was  the  historical  origin  of  Arminianism  ? 

1.  Nature  op  Justification. — What  is  the  Arminian  doctrine 

as  to  the  nature  of  justification? 

2.  Ground   op   Justification. — What,  as   to   the   ground   of 

justification? 
In  what  respect  is  justification  gratuitous,  according  to  the  Ar- 
minian doctrine? 


JUSTIFICATION.  105 

3.  Nature  op  ^TusTiFYiNa  Faith. — What  is  the  Arminian 
doctrine  concerning  the  nature  and  office  of  lUith  in  justi- 
fication ? 

§  2.  Refuted. 

What  are  the  leading  objections  to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification ? 

[III.]  RATIONALISM. 

In  what  sense  do  rationalists  admit  that  men  are  justified  or  saved 
by  faith? 

[IV.]  NEW  SCHOOL  THEOLOGY. 

How  do  the  more  orthodox  of  the  New  School  theologians  differ 

from  us  as  to  the  nature  of  justification? 
How,  as  to  its  ground  ?  or  as  to  the  imputation  of  righteousness  ? 

[V.]  GOVERNMENTAL  THEORY. 

What  view  of  justification  is  connected  with  the  governmental 
theory  of  the  atonement? 

[VI.]  DR.  EMMONS'  DOCTRINE. 

What  is  Dr.  Emmons'  doctrine  on  this  subject? 

///.     THE   ROMISH  DOCTRINE. 

[I.]  NATURE  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

What  does  justification  include,  according  to  Romanists? 

(1.)  What  is  meant  by  remission? 

(2.)  What,  by  the  infusion  of  righteousness  ? 

[II.]   GROUND  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

(L)  What  is  the  efficient  cause  of  justification? 

(2.)  What,  the  meritorious  cause? 

(3.)  What,  ih-Q  formal  cause? 

(4.)  What,  the  predisjyosinj  causes  ? 

[III.]  MEANS  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

What  is  the  means  of  jiustification,  according  to  Romanists? 
How  does  this  involve  the  doctrine  of  progressive  justification? 


106  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

V.  SANCTIFICATION. 

/.   NATURE  OF  SANCTIFICATION. 
[I.]   PELAaiANISM. 
What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  the  nature  of  sanctification  ? 

[II.]   ARMINIANISM. 
What  is  the  Semi-Pehigian  view? 

[III.]   EOMANISM. 

What  is  the  Romish  theory  ? 

[IV.]  PROTESTANTISM. 

What  are  the  Scripture  expressions  for  sanctification?  and  what 
is  their  import? 

§  1.  The  Author  of  Sanctification. 
To  whom  is  the  work  of  sanctification  ascribed  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

(1.)    1   Thess.   V.   23;    Heb.  xiii.  21;     (2.)    Tit.   ii.   14; 

Eph.  V.  26;  John  xvii.  15;  (3.)  Rom.  xv.  16. 
In  what  sense  is  sanctification  a  work  of  free  grace  ? 

§  2.   The  Subject  op  Sanctification. 
(1.)  How  does  it  appear  that  the  mind  is  sanctified? 
"(2.)  How,  the  heart? 
(3.)  How,  the  body? 

§  3.   Sanctification  not  mere  Reformation. 
How  does  sanctification  differ  from  mere  moral  reformation  ? 
§  4.   The  Means  op  Sanctification. 

1.  Inward. — How  are  we  sanctified  by  faith? 

2.  Outward. — (1.)  How,  by  the  truth? 
(2.)  How,  by  the  sacraments  ? 

(3.)  How,  by  prayer  ? 

§  5.  The  Fruits  of  Sanctification. 

1.  Nature  of  Good  Works. — What  is  the  distinction  between 
the  Reformed  and  the  Remonstrant  doctrine  as  to  abso- 
lutely good  works  ? 


SANCTIFICATION.  107 

2.  Conditions  of  Good  Works.— 1s<.  What  arc  the  necessary 

conditions  of  a  good  work  ? 
(1.)  In  what  sense  do  Protestants  teach  that  no  uncommanded 

work  can  be  good  ? 
(2.)  What  must  be  the  nature  of  every  good  work  ? 
(3.)  In  what  sense  must  a  good  work  be  done  for  the  glory  of 

God? 
"Id.  In  what  sense  are  the  works  of  the  unrenewed  good  ? 
What  does  the  Bible  mean  when  it  says  that  the  ploughing  of  the 

wicked  is  sin  ? 

3.  Necessity  of  Good  Works. — What  is  the  Protestant  doc- 

trine as  to  the  necessity  of  good  works  ? 
What  are  the  grounds  of  this  necessity? 

4.  Relation   of  Good  Works   to    Reward. — \st.  Protestant 

Doctrine. — What  is  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  rela- 
tion between  good  works  and  reward  ? 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  merit  ?" 

What  are  the  conditions  of  a  meritorious  work  ? 

2d.    Romish  Doctrine. — What   is   the  Romish  doctrine  on  this 

subject  ? 
What  is  the  Romish  distinction  between  the  merit  of  congruity 

and  the  merit  of  condignity  ? 


//.  PERFECTIONISM. 
[I.]   THE  DOCTRINE  STATED. 

What  is  included  in  perfection,  according  to  all  the  advocates  of 

perfectionism  ? 
As  to  what  points  do  perfectionists  differ  from  each  other  ? 

§  1.  Pelagianism. 

What  are  the  two  radical  principles  of  Pelagianism  ? 
What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  of  perfectionism? 
What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  grace  ? 
How  was  this  doctrine  received  by  the  church  ? 

§  2.  Romanism. 

What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject? 


108  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

In  what  sense  do  they  teach  that  men  may  be  free  from  sin,  and 
perfectly  obey  the  law? 

§  3.  Arminianism. 

(1.)  What  is  included  in  perfection,   according  to  the  Remon- 
strants and  Wesley  ? 
What  are  the  three  degrees  of  perfection  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  Wesleyan  definition  of  sin  ? 
In  what  sense  does  perfection  include  freedom  from  sin  ? 
(3.)  In  what  sense  is  the  obedience  rendered  perfect  ? 
(4.)  According  to  what  law  are  men  pronounced  perfect  ? 
(5.)  How  is  perfection  due  to  the  grace  of  God  ? 

§  4.  Oberlin  Theory. 

What  is  the  Oberlin  theory  ? 

According  to  this  theory,  what  does  the  law  demand  ? 
On  what  principles  is  this  theory  founded,  as  to  holiness,  sin, 
obligation,  and  ability  ? 

[II.]   ARGUMENTS  FOR  PERFECTIONISM. 

What  is  the  argument  for  ability  urged  in  favor  of  perfectionism  ? 

and  how  is  it  answered  ? 
What  are  the  other  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  ? 

[III.]  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  PERFECTIONISM. 

(1.)  How  may  this  doctrine  be  shown  to  rest  on  false  views  of 

sin? 
(2.)  And  on  false  views  of  the  nature  of  God's  law  ? 
(3.)  How  does  it  create  a  false  standard  of  character  ? 
(4.)  How  does  it  contradict  Scripture  ? 
(5.)  How  does  it  contradict  experience  ? 
(6.)    How   do   perfectionists    themselves  illustrate   the  delusive 

character  of  their  belief? 
(7.)  How  does  it  tend  to  Antinonianism  ? 


STATE   OF   THE    SOUL   AFTER    DEATH.  109 


ESCHATOLOGY. 


I.  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

/.  THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL. 

(1.)  What   is   the   argument   for    the    iiumortality   of  the  soul, 

derived  from  common  consent  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  metaphysical  argument  ? 
(3.)  "WTiat,  the  teleological  argument  ? 
(4.)  What,  the  theological  argument  ? 
(5.)  What,  the  Scripture  argument  ? 
How  far  is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

//.  INTERMEDIATE  STATE. 
[I.]    THE   SCRIPTURE   DOCTRINE. 

1.  Believers. — (1.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  believers  sre 

at  death  made  perfect  in  holiness  ? 
(2.)  How,  that  they  do  immediately  pass  into  glory? 

2.  Impenitent. — What  is  the  condition  of  the  impenitent,  imme- 

diately after  death  ?  and  how  is  it  proved  '( 
What  difference  is  there  between  the  condition  of  the  soul,  imme- 
diately after  death,  and  its  condition  after  the  final  judg- 
ment? 

[II.]  ERRONEOUS  VIEWS. 
§  1.  The  Soul  Asleep. 

How  far  did  the  doctrine  of  a  sleep  of  the  soul  after  death 
prevail  ? 

§  2.  Hades. 

What  was  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  Jiadcs  ? 

To  what  extent  did  this  view  prevail  in  the  Christian  church  ? 

§  3.  Purgatory. 
What  was  the  earliest  form  of  the  doctrine  of  a  purification  by 

fire  after  death  ? 
What  was  the  origin  of  that  doctrine  ? 

15 


110  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

What  was  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Schoolmen  ? 

1.  Romish  Doctrine  Stated. — Into  what  classes  do  Romanists 

divide  the  souls  of  the  dead  ? 
Who  go  immediately  to  heaven  ?    who  immediately  to  hell  ?    and 

who  to  purgatory  ? 
What  do  Romanists  teach  as  to  the  nature,  design,  and  duration 

of  the  pains  of  purgatory  ? 
How  far,  and  on  what  grounds,  do  they  represent   purgatory  as 

under  "the  power  of  the  keys?" 

2.  Romish  Arguments. — (1.)  What  is  the  argument  for  pur- 

gatory from  tradition  ?  and  how  answered  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  argument  from  the  rites  of  the  church  ?  and  how 

answered  ? 
(3.)  What,  front  special  revelations  ? 
(4.)  What,  from  the  custom  of  praying  for  the  dead  ?  and  how 

answered  ? 
(5.)  What,  from  Scripture  ? 
What  are  the  real  foundations  of  this  doctrine  ?  (1)  theoretical  ? 

and  (2)  practical  ? 

3.  Protestant  Arguments. — (1.)  How  is  this  doctrine  refuted 

by  its  unscriptural  character  ? 

(2.)  How  does  it  contradict  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion? 

(3.)  How,  that  of  probation  in  this  life  ? 

(4.)  How,  that  of  the  state  of  the  dead  ? 


II.  THE  RESURRECTION. 

I.   THE  DOCTRINE. 
§  1.  The  Fact. 

(1.)  State  the  argument  in  favor  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body, 

from  the  distinction  which  the  Scriptures  make  between 

the  soul  and  the  body? 
(2.)  What  passages  speak  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  grave  rising? 

John  V.  26,  28,  vi.  39;  Acts  xxiv.  15;  Rom.  viii.  11,  22; 

Phil.  iii.  20,  21;  1  Thess.  iv.  16. 
How  does  the  apostle  prove  the  resurrection  in  1  Cor.  chap,  xv? 
How  is  the  resurrection  of  Christ  established  ? 


THE   RESURRECTION.  Ill 

(3.)  State  the  argument  from  the  subject  of  the  chan<^c  spoken 
of— Rom.  viii.  22;  1  Cor.  vi.  15,  20;  xv.  21,  22. 

§  2.    UNIVERSALITY    OF   THE    RESURRECTION. 

What  passages  of  Scripture  teach  that  the  impenitent  as  well  as 
believers  shall  be  raised  up?  Dan.  xii.  2;  John  v.  28,  20. 

§  3.  Identity  of  the  Resurrection  Body. 
How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Scriptures  teach  the  identity  of 

our  future  with  our  present  bodies  ? 
Is  it  necessary,  in  order  to  faith  in  the  doctrine,  to  know  in  what 

that  identity  consists  ? 
What  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  idea  of  identity  of  substance  'i 
How  may  it  be  shown  that  an  identity  as  to  substance  in  this  case 

is  not  impossible  ? 
Is  identity  of  substance  necessary  in  order  to  the  identity  of  the 

resurrection  body?  ^ 

Wherein  consists  the  identity  of  the  bodj'ln  this  life  ? 
Wherein  consists  the  identity  of  a  work  of  art  ? 

§  4.  Nature  of  the  Resurrection  Body. 
What  do  the   Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  nature  of  the  future 

body? 
In  what  sense  is  it  to  be  spiritual  ? 
In  what  sense  is  it  not  to  be  flesh  and  blood  ? 

§  5.  Time  op  the  Resurrection. 
What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  time  of  the  resurrection  ? 

//.  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE. 

How  far   did  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection   prevail    among 

ancient  nations  ? 
How  is  the  coincidence  between   their  views  and  those  of  tlm 

Bible  to  be  accounted  for  ? 
How  far  is  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  taught  in  the  Old  Tet^- 

tament  ? 
By  whom  was  this  doctrine  opposed  at  the  time  of  the  advent  ol' 

Christ?  and  by  whom  immediately  aiter  ? 
Under  what  diflerent  forms  did  the  doctrine  appear  in  the  early 

church  ? 
What    were    the    representations    common    in    the    seventcenih 

century? 


112  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

III.   THE  END  OF  THE  WORLD. 

/.   TEE  SECOND  AD  VENT. 

What  is  tlie  meaning  of  the  phrases  "coming"  and  "day  of  the 

Lord,"  as  used  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 
AVhat  is  the  meaning  of  the  same  phrases  in  the  New  Testament? 
What  are  the  different  views  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  coming,  as 

spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

§  1.  The  Fact  of  the  Advent. 

1.  Proved. — How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Scriptures  foretell 

a  second,  visible,  glorious  advent  of  the  Son  of  God  ? 
Matt.  xvi.  27,  xxiv.  30,  xxv.  31,  xxvi:  64;  Mark  viii.  38 ; 
Luke  xxi.  27;  Acts  i.  11,  iii.  19,  21;  1  Cor.  i.  7.  iv.  5, 
XV.  23;  2  Cor.  i.  14;  Phil.  i.  6,  ii.  16,  iii.  20,  21;  Col. 
iii.  4;  2  Thess.  i.  7,  10,  ii.  1,  12 ;  1  Tim.  vi.  14;  2  Tim. 
iv.  8 ;  Titus  ii.  13 ;  1  Peter  i.  4,  7,  iv.  5,  13,  v.  4 ;  2  Peter 
i.  16,  iii.  3,  13;  James  v.  7,  8. 

2.  Objections. — (1.)  How  is  the  objection  to  this  view  to  be 

answered,  derived  from  the  manner  in  which  similar  pre- 
dictions of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  fulfilled  ? 

(2.)  How  is  this  view  to  be  reconciled  with  the  declaration  that 
the  generation  then  living  should  not  pass  away  until  those 
prophecies  were  fulfilled  ? 

What  are  the  three  diff"erent  methods  of  interpreting  the  twenty- 
fourth  and  twenty-fifth  chapters  of  Matthew  ? 

§  2.  Time  of  the  Advent. 

What  were  the  expectations  of  the  apostles  with  regard  to  the 
second  advent?  and  how  were  those  expectations  modified? 

What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  time  of  Christ's 
second  advent? 

What  are  the  different  opinions  in  the  church  with  regard  to  it? 

//.   THE  MILLENNIUM. 
§  1.  Jewish  Doctrine. 
What  was  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  millennium  ? 
§  2.  PEARLY  Christian  Opinions. 
What  view  on  that  subject  prevailed  in  the  early  church? 


the  end  of  the  world.  113 

§  3.  The  Alexandrian  View. 
How  was  the  view  of  the  early  church  super.seded  ? 

§  4.  Modern  Opinion. 
What  is  the  common  modern  opinion  on  the  subject  ? 

Restoration  of  the  Jews. 

1.  Arguments  for  a  Literal  Restoration. — What  are  the 

arguments  in  favour  of  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  the  land 
of  Palestine? 

2.  Opposing  Arguments. — AVhat  are  the  arguments  against  it? 

§  5.  The  Kingdom  of  Christ. 
What  was  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour  concerning  his  kingdom? 
What  did  th^  apostles  teach,  on  this  subject? 
What  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Reve- 
lation ? 

IIL   THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT. 

[I.]  ERRONEOUS  VIEWS. 

§  1.   The  Judgment   Present. 

(1.)  What  is  the  common  rationalistic  form  of  the  doctrine  that 

the  judgment  is  a  process  now  in  progress? 
(2.)  What  form  of  this  opinion  is  founded  on  the  prophecies  of 

the  Old  Testament? 
(3.)  What  is  the  pantheistic  form  of  this  opinion? 
§  2.  A  Future  Dispensation. 

What  erroneous  opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  duration  of  the  final 
judgment  is  connected  with  one  conmion  form  of  millona- 
rianism? 

[II.]   THE  TRUE  VIEW. 

What  are  some  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  final 
judgment  is  described?  Matt.  xi.  24,  xiii.  30,  xxxix.  43, 
49,  xvi.  27,  xxiv.  29,  35,  xxv.  30,  40;  John  v.  22.  29, 
xii.  48;  Acts  x.  42,  xvii.  31 ;  Rom.  ii.  5.  K),  xiv.  10; 
1  Cor.  iv.  5;  2  Cor.  v.  10;  2  Thc.<s.  i.  7, 10;  2  Tim  iv.  1; 
1  Pet.  iv.  5;  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  iii.  4.  13;  Jude  6;  iiev.  xx. 
12,  13. 

(1.)  What  do  we  know  with  regard  to  the  duration  of  the  judg- 
ment ? 

(2.)  With  what  other  predicted  events  is  it  to  be  connected  ? 


114  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

(3.)  Who  is  to  be  the  judge? 

(4.)  Who  are  to  be  judged  ? 

(5.)  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  completeness 

of  the  revelation  of  sin  to  be  made  at  the  judgment  ? 
(G.)  When  is  the  judgment  to  take  place? 
(7.)  What  are  two  remarkable  characteristics  of  the  prophecies  of 

Scripture  already  accomplished  ?  and  what  is  the  bearing 

of  the  remark  upon  the  literal  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies 

concerning  the  judgment? 

IV.   THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

What  passages  of  Scripture  refer  to  the  destruction  of  the  world  ? 
Psa.^cii.  25,  26;  Isa.  li.  6,  Ixv.  17;"  Matt.  v.  18,  24,  29  ; 
Luke  xxi.  33;.Eom.  viii.  19,  21;  Heb.  xii.  26,  27; 
2  Pet.  iii.  5-13;  Kev.  xx.  11,  xxi.  1. 

(1.)  What  is  t\ie  figurative  interpretation  of  these  passages  enter- 
tained by  some  ?  and  why  is  it  untenable  ? 

(2.)  According  to  the  literal  interpretation,  is  the  world  to  be 
destroyed  ?  or  to  be  renewed  ? 

What  is  meant,  in  these  passages,  by  "world,"  "heavens,"  and 
"  earth?" 


IV.   HEAVEN  AND   HELL. 

/.   EVERLASTING  LIFE. 

Is  heaven  a  place  or  a  state  ? 

Wherein  does  the  blessedness  of  heaven  consist  (1)  negatively  ? 

(2)  positively  ? 
Will  there  be  degrees  of  blessedness  in  heaven  ? 

//.  ETERNAL  DEATH. 

§  1.   Nature  of  Hell. 
Ls  hell  a  place  or  a  state  ? 
Wherein  does  the  misery  of  hell  consist  ? 
Is  the  fire  of  hell  literal  fire  ? 


the  sacraments.  115 

§  2.  Duration  of  Future  Punishment. 

What  are  the  various  opiuious  with  regard  to  the  duration  of 
future  punishment? 

1.  Proved. — (1.)  How  may  the  absolute  eternity  of  future  puni.-^h- 

ment  be  proved  from  the  silence  of  Scripture  ? 
(2.)  How  from  the  signification  of  the  terms    tbis.   auouio^t 
(3.)  How,  from  other  synonymous  expressions  ? 
(4.)  How,  from  Christ's   declaration  concerning  the  sin  against 

the  Holy  Ghost? 
(5.)  How,  from  the  declaration  that  the  wrath  of  God  abidcth  on 

the  condemned  ? 

2.  Objections. — (1.)  "What  is  the  Scripture   objection  to  this 

doctrine  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  objection  founded  on  God's  justice  ?  and  how 

may  it  be  answered  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  objection  founded  on  the  benevolence  of  God? 

and  hoAV  may  it  be  answered  ? 


THE    SACRAMENTS. 


I.  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

/.   NATURE  OF  A  SACRAMENT. 

What  is  the  classic  usage  of  the  word  sacramentum  ? 

What  was  the  meaning  of  the  term  in  the  early  Latin  church 

What  was  the  patristic  definition  of  a  sacrament  ? 

What,  the  scholastic  ? 

What,  the  Romish  ? 

What,  the  Protestant  ? 

How  is  the  idea  of  a  sacrament  to  be  determined  ? 

//.   NUMBER  OF  SACRAMENTS. 
How  is  the  number  of  sacraments  to  be  determined  ? 
What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  that  point  ? 
What  are  the  objections  to  it  ? 


116  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 

III.  EFFICACY  OF  TEE  SACRAMENTS. 

§  1.  Romanism. 

What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments 
in  general  ? 

What  peculiar  efficacy  in  addition  is  ascribed  to  baptism,  confirma- 
tion and  orders  ? 

In  what  sense  do  Romanists  teach  that  the  sacraments  contain  the 
grace  which  they  convey? 

In  what  sense  do  they  convey  grace  ex  opere  operatof 

What  are  the  conditions  required  in  the  recipient  ? 

What  is  necessary  in  the  administrator? 

What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  intention  ? 

§  2.   LUTHERANISM. 

What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments ? 
In  what  points  does  it  differ  from  the  Romish  doctrine? 

§  3.  The  Reformed  Doctrine. 
What  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments ? 
How  does  it  differ  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine  ? 

§  4.  The  Remonstrant  Doctrine. 
What  was  the  Zwinglian  (afterward  the  Remonstrant)  doctrine  on 
this  subject? 

IV.  NECESSITY  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS.     . 

(1.)  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  sacra- 
ments ? 
(2.)  What,  the  Lutheran? 
(3.)  What,  the  Reformed? 

V.    VALIDITY  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS 
What  is  meant  by  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  ? 
On  what  does  it  depend  ? 


BAPTISM.  117 


.    li.   BAPTISM. 

/.   TEE  EXTERNAL  FORM. 
§  1.  Mode  of  Baptism. 

What  was  the  prevalence  of  religious  washings  in  the  East  ? 

What  is  Christian  baptism  ? 

(1.)  What  is  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  view  that  baptism  is  a 

washing,  and  not  merely  immersion  from  the  design  of  the 

ordinance  ? 
(2.)  What,  from  the  character  of  the  Christian  dispensation  ? 
(3.)  What,  from  the  usage  of  the  words  j^aTtzw  and  ^oKura)  ? 
What,  from  the  baptism  of  cups,  etc.? 
What,  from  the  interchange  between  ^arzzoi  and  vctztw  1 
(4.)  What,  from  the  record  of  baptisms  in  the  New  Testament? 
(5.)  What,  from  the  significance  of  the  rite? 
(6.)  What,  from  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

§  2.  Formula  of  Baptism. 
What  is  the  prescribed  formula  of  baptism  ? 
What  is  its  import  ? 
What  does  "baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  mean  ? 

//.  DESIGN  AND  EFFICACY  OF  BAPTISM. 
§  1.  The  Reformed  Doctrine. 
What  is  the  twofold  design  of  baptism  ? 

\st.    On  the  Believer's  Part. 
What  does  baptism  involve,  upon  the  part  of  the  recipient? 

2d.    On  God's  Part. 

1.  It  is  a  Sign. — What  does  baptism  signify? 

2.  It  is  a  Seal. — How  is  it  a  seal  ? 

3.  It  Conveys  Blessing. — In  what  sense  does  baptism  convey 

the  blessings  of  the  covenant  ? 
16 


118  SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

To  what  is  this  efficacy  to  be  referred  ? 
How  is  the  efficacy  of  baptism  proved  ? 

§  2.  The  Lutheran  Doctrine. 
What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism  ? 
To  what  is  this  efficacy  due  ? 
Why  is  faith  essential  to  its  efficacy? 
What  was  the  origin  of  Luther's  view  of  baptism? 

§  3.  The  Komish  Doctrine. 
What  is  the  Komish  doctrine  upon  this  subject? 

III.  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered  ? 

[L]   ADULT  BAPTISM. 

§  1.  Points  Agreed  Upon. 

What  are  the  qualifications  for  adult  baptism? 

How  is  that  point  determined  ? 

(1.)  What  is  meant  by  "  competent  knowledge,"  as  a  qualification 

for  baptism  ? 
(2.)  What,  by  "  a  credible  profession  ?" 

§  2.  Point  Disputed. 

(1.)  What   is   the   usage  of  the  Romish,   Greek  and  Anglican 

churches  as  to  adult  baptism  ?  and  on  what  does  it  rest  ? 
(2.)  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  and  custom  ? 
(3.)  What,  the  common  Protestant  ? 

[II.]  INFANT  BAPTISM. 
§  1.  Are  Infants  Proper  Subjects  op  Baptism? 
1.  Affirmative  Argument. — What  is  the  church? 

\st.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  there  was  a  church  under  the 

Old  Testament  dispensation? 
2,d.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  conditioa  of  membership  waa 

then  the  same  as  it  is  now  ? 


BAPTISM.  119 

3d.  (1.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  infants  were  memhers  of  the 
church  then,  from  the  spiritual  import  of  circumcision  ? 

From  the  analogy  between  circumcision  and  baptism  ? 

From  the  penalty  pronounced  on  the  uncircumcised  ? 

(2.)  How  may  it  be  proved  that  infants  have  not  been  excluded 
from  the  church  under  the  New  Testament? 

What  is  the  argument  from  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

What,  from  the  command  of  Christ  to  make  disciples,  as  inter- 
preted by  the  apostles  ? 

What,  from  the  usage  of  the  early  church,  as  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament  ? 

What,  from  the  practice  of  the  church,  since  then? 

What,  from  the  analogy  between  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the 
covenants  in  which  by  divine  command  children  have  been 
included  with  their  parents  ? 

2.  Objection. — How  is  the  objection  to  be  answered,  that  bap- 
tism implies  confession  of  faith,  which  children  cannot 
make? 

§  2.  Whose  Children  are  entitled  to  Baptism? 
\st.  Romish  Usage. 
What  is  the  Romish  usage  as  t<5  the  baptism  of  children  ?  and  on 
what  principle  is  it  founded  ? 

2d.  Protestant  Usage. 

What  answer  is  given  to  this  question  in  the  standards  of  Pro- 
testant churches  ? 

1.  First  Extreme. — What  is   the   principle   on  which   many 

churches  baptize  the  children  of  all  baptized  parents  ? 
What  is  meant  by  the  "  halfway"  covenant?  and  to  what  practice 
did  it  lead  as  to  this  point  ? 

2.  Second  Extreme. — What  is  the  Puritan  doctrine  and  prac- 

tice? 

3.  The  True  Answer. — What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed 

church  ? 
How  is  that  doctrine  sustained  against  the  lax  European  practice? 
How,  asrainst  the  Puritan  ? 


120  SYSTEMATIC   THEOLOGY. 


III.  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

/.   SCRIPTURE  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
ORDINANCE. 

What  are  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  relate  to  the  Lord's 

supper  ? 
What  are  the  different  designations  which  it  has  received  in  the 

church  ? 

§  1.   Its  Perpetual  Obligation". 
How  is  the  perpetual  obligation  of  this  sacrament  proved  ? 

§  2.  Elements  Used. 
Why  are  the  bread  and  wine  called  elements  ? 
What  kinds  of  bread  do  different  churches  use  ? 
AVhat  is  the^Scripture  meaning  of  the  word  oluo^  ?  and  what  is 

the  usage  of  the  church  as  to  the  kind  of  wine  ? 
On  what  ground  do  the  Romish  church  withhold  the  cup  from 
the  laity  ? 

§  3.  How  Administered. 

1.  Consecrated. — What  is  the  import  of  the  words  tufaptaxuo 

and  euXoyeo),  as  used  in  connection  with  this  ordinance  ? 

2.  Breaking  Bread. — How  do^  it  appear  that  breaking  the 

bread  is  an  important  part  of  the  service  ? 

3.  Distribution. — How  does  the  importance  of  the  distribution 

of  the  elements  appear  ? 
On  what  grounds  do  Romanists  so  often  omit  the  distribution  of 

the  elements  ? 
^7hat  does  our  church  teach  as  to  the  communion  of  the  sick  ? 

§  4.  Its  Design. 
What  is  the  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
How  does  it  signify,  seal,  and  apply  the  benefits  of  redemption  ? 

§  5.  The  Participants. 
(1.)    In  the   early  church,  who  were   admitted  to   the   Lord's 
Supper  ? 


THE   lord's   supper.  121 

(2.)  "What  is  the  practice  among  those  who  regard  the  Lord's 

Supper  as  a  converting  ordinance  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  true  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

II.  DOQTRINE  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH. 

What  was  the  doctrine  of  impanation  ? 

What  other  forms  of  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  and  efficacy  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  found  in  the  early  church  ? 

III.  ROMISH  DOCTRINE. 

1.  Stated. — (1.)  What   was  the    gradual  development  of  the 

Romish  doctrine  during  the  middle  ages  ? 
(2.)  How  is  the  Romish  doctrine  exhibited  in  the  canons  of  the 

Council  of  Trent  ? 
(3.)  What  is  the  distinction  which  the  Church  of  Rome  makes 

between  the  efficacy  of  the  institution  as  a  sacrament  and 

as  a  sacrifice  ? 

2.  Refuted. — What  are  the  objections  to  this  doctrine  ? 

IV.  LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE. 

(1.)  How  is  this  doctrine  presented  in  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran 

church  ? 
(2.)  In  what  points  does  the  Lutheran  agree  with  the  Romish 

doctrine  ? 
(3.)  In  what  does  it  differ  ? 
(4.)  What  is  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  church  as  to 

the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body? 

V.  REFORMED  DOCTRINE. 

What  are  the  sources  of  difficulty  in  determining  the  true  doctrine 

of  the  Reformed  churches  on  this  subject? 
What  are  the  three  forms  of  opinion  which  prevailed  in  the 

Reformed  churches,  on  this  subject? 
What  documents  represent  these  several  forms  ? 

§  1.  Christ's  Presence. 
What  are  the  different  answers  to  the  question,  in  what  sense  is 

Christ  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper?  (1.)  The  Zwinglian? 

(2.)  The  Calvinistic  ?  (3.)  The  Compromise  ? 


122  systematic  theology. 

§  2.  Receiving  Christ. 
What  are  the  different  answers  to  the  question,  what  is  meant  by 

"  receiving  Christ"  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
How  do  believers  receive  Christ  ? 
What  is  it  that  believers  do  receive  ? 

§  3.  Efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

What  is  the  efficacy  which  the  Reformed  churches  attribute  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  peculiar  views  of  Calvin  were  not 
those  of  the  Reformed  churches,  either  generally  or  per- 
manently? 


FINIS. 


INDEX 


Introduction.    Nature,  Forms  and  Sources  op  Theology. 

Page 
First.    Its  Nature,     ........        5 

I.  Theology,  ...... 

II.  Keligion,  ...... 

III.  Relation  between  Religion  and  Theology,  . 

1.  Schleiermacher's  Theory,  .  . 

2.  The  True  View,  .... 
Second.    Its  Forms,    ....... 

I.  Natural  Theology,        ..... 

II.  Revealed  Theology,         ..... 
Third.    Its  Sources,  ...... 

I.  Rationalism,  ...... 

1.  Rationalistic  Theories:  Deism,  Partial  Revelation 

Accommodation,  .... 

2.  The  True  Office  of  Reason, 

II.  Enthusiasm,  ...... 

III.  Romanism,    ...... 

1.  Roman  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith,    . 

2.  Examination  of  the  Romish  Theory, 

IV.  Protestantism,    ...... 

Inspiration — Plenary  Inspiration,  .  , 


BOOK  FIRST:— THEOLOGY  PROPER. 
Part  I.    Deus  Existens. 
/.   God  Considered  as  One. 
The  Being  of  God. 

I.  Origin  of  the  Idea  of  God,  .  .  .  .  .15 

II.  Proof  of  the  Existence  of  God,         ....  18 

1.  The  Ontological  Argument,  .  .  .  .16 

2.  The  Coamological  Argument,  .  .  .  16 

(123) 


124 


Page. 

8.  The  Teleological  Argument, 

, 

, 

.      17 

4.  The  Moral  Argument, 

. 

17 

6.  The  Argument  from  Consent 

. 

. 

.       18 

III.  Systems  opposed  to  Theism, 

. 

. 

18 

1.  Polytheism, 

.       19 

2.  Atheism.  (l)Hylozoism.  (2)  Materialism. 

(3)  Pantheism,  19 

II.  The  Nature  op  God. 

I.  The  Knowledge  of  God,    . 

. 

. 

.       19 

1.  Can  God  be  known  ?      . 

. 

19 

2.  How  may  God  be  known  ? 

. 

, 

.      20 

II.  The  Definition  of  God, 

. 

21 

III.  The  Attributes  of  God. 

I.  What  is  an  Attribute  ? 

. 

21 

II.  How  do  Attributes  differ  ? 

. 

.      21 

III.  Classification  of  the  Attributes, 

. 

21 

1.  Spirituality, 

. 

.      22 

2.  Infinitude, 

. 

22 

3.  Eternity, 

. 

.      23 

4.  Immutability,    . 

. 

23 

6.  Omniscience,         .  . 

. 

.      24 

6.  Will,        . 

. 

24 

7.  Omnipotence, 

.      25 

8.  Holiness, 

.    . 

26 

9.  Justice, 

.      26 

10.  Goodness, 

27 

11.  Truth, 

.     . 

.      27 

12.  Sovereignty, 

• 

27 

11.    God  Considered 

as  Triune. 

The  Trinity. 

I.  The  Biblical  Statement,    . 

, 

, 

.      28 

II.  The  Ecclesiastical  Statement, 

. 

. 

28 

1.  History  of  Error,    . 

. 

, 

.      28 

2.  Council  of  Nice, 

. 

. 

28 

3.  Church  Doctrine,    . 

. 

.      29 

4.  Eternal  Generation.     Sonshi 

p  of  Christ, 

. 

30 

5.  Procession  of  the  Spirit,    . 

. 

. 

.      30 

III.  The  Philosophical  Statement, 

. 

31 

HI.   The  Second  and  Third  Persons  of  the  Godhead 
considered  separately. 
1.  Christ.    His  Divinity. 

I.  Proof  from  the  Old  Testament,     ..... 

II.  Proof  from  the  New  Testament,      .... 


125 


II.  The  Holt  Spirit. 

I.  The  Doctrine,  .... 

II.  History  of  the  Doctrine, 

Part  II.   Deus  Volens. 

I.  The  Decrees  of  God. 

I.  The  Doctrine  Stated  and  Proved, 

II.  Objections  Kefuted,     .  .  .  . 

II.  Election. 

I.  The  Doctrine  Stated  and  Proved, 

II.  Objections  Refuted,     .  .  .  . 

III.  History  of  the  Doctrine, 

III.  Reprobation. 

I.  The  Doctrine  Stated  and  Proved, 

II.  Objections  Refuted, 

IV.  Order  of  the  Decrees.  .     .     .     . 


Page 

.   34 

35 


Part  III.      Deus  Agens. 

7.  God's  Ordinary  Works. 

I.  Creation. 

I.  The  Doctrine  Stated,         .... 

II.  Proof  of  the  Doctrine,  ... 

III.  Objections  Refuted, 

IV.  The  Design  of  Creation, 

V.  Mosaic  Account  of  the  Creation, 

II.  Providence. 

I.  Preservation,     ..... 

1.  The  Fact,     ..... 

2.  Nature  of  the  Divine  Efficiency  in  Preservation 

II.  Government,         ..... 

1.  The  Fact,  .  .  :  . 

2.  Universality  of  the  Divine  Government, 

3.  Nature  of  God's  Providential  Government, 

(1.)  The  Mechanical  Theory,     . 
(2.)  Theory  of  Occasional  Causes,    . 
(3.)  The  Harmonic  Theory, 
(4.)  The  Doctrine  of  Concursus 
(6.)  The  Scripture  Doctrine, 

11.    God's  Extraordinary  Works. 
Miracles. 

I.  What  is  a  Miracle?      .... 

II.  Are  Miracles  possible?    .... 

III.  Can  a  Miracle  be  kno'wn? 

IV.  Value  of  Miracles  as  Evidence, 

17 


126 


INDEX. 

The  Law  of  God. 


I.  In  General,         .  . 

II.  The  Decalogue, 

III.  The  Ceremonial  Law, 


Page 

47 

.      48 

52 


BOOK  SECOND :— ANTHROPOLOGY. 
Part  I. — Origin,  Nature  and  Primitive  State  op  Man. 

I.  Creation  op  Man. 

I.  The  Scripture  Account,     .  .  .  ...  .      i 

II.  False  Theories,  .... 


II.  Nature  of  Man. 

1.  Dualism, 

.      54 

1.  The  Scripture  Doctrine, 

54 

2.  Opposing    Errors.     (1.)  Materialism  and    Idealism; 

(2.)  Pantheism,-  (3.)  Trichotomy, 

.      54 

II.  Realism,           ...... 

55 

III.  Origin  of  the  Soul,          ..... 

.      56 

1.  Preexistence,      ..... 

56 

2.  The  Traducian  Controversy, 

.      66 

IV.  Unity  of  the  Race, 

67 

1,  The  Zoological  Argument, 

.      57 

2.  The  Philological  Argument,    . 

58 

3.  The  Moral  Argument,        .... 

.      58 

Ill,  Original  State  of  Man. 

I.  The  Protestant  Doctrine,         .            .            .            . 

58 

II.  The  Romanist  Doctrine,               .... 

.      59 

III.  The  Pelagian  Doctrine, 

60 

Part  II.   Man's  Probation  and  Apostasy. 

The  Covenant  with  Adam  and  the  Fall. 

I.  The  Covenant  with  Adam.     (1.)  The  Fact;  (2.)  The  Promise; 

(3.)    The  Condition;    (4.)   The   Penalty;    (5.)    The    Parties; 
(6.)  Perpetuity  of  the  Covenant,  .  .  .  .61 

II.  The  Fall.     (1.)  The  Scripture  Account;  (2.)  The  Tree  of  Life ; 

(3.)  The  Tree  of  Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil;  (4.)  The  Ser- 
pent; (5.)  The  Temptation ;  (6.)  The  Immediate  Effect,  62 

Part  III.  Nature  of  Sin,  and  of  Adam's  Transgression. 

I.  Metaphysical  Theories. 

I.  The  Dualistic  Theory, .63 

II.  The  Limitation  Theory,         .....  63 

III.  Leibnitz's  Theory,  .  .  .  .  .  .63 

IV.  Theory  of  Action  and  Reaction,      ....  64 


127 


v.  Schleiermacher's  Theory, 

VI.  The  "  Flesh"  Theory. 

VII.  The  "  Selfishness"  Theory, 
II.  Theological  Theouies. 

I.  Patristic  Theories, 

II.  Pelagianism, 

III.  Augustinianism, 

1.  The  Speculative  Element,  .... 

2.  The  Experimental  Element.    (1.)  Augustine's  Experi- 

ence; (2.)  His  Inferences;  (3.)  The  Scripture  Solution, 

IV.  Semi-Pelagianism,  .  .  .  •  • 

V.  Romanism, 

1.  Anselm, 

2.  Abelard, 

3.  Aquinas, 

4.  Duns  Scotus, 
6.  Council  of  Trent, 

VI.  Protestantism,     . 

Part  IV.    Effect  of  Adam's  Sin  on  His  Posterity, 

I.  Imputation. 

I.  Immediate  Imputation, 

1.  The  Doctrine  Stated.    (1.)  The  Fact,  and  (2.)  The  Ground 

of  Imputation, 

2.  The  Doctrine  Proved, 

3.  Objections  Answered, 

II.  Mediate  Imputation, 

III.  "  Propagation"  Theories, 

1.  Preexistence, 

2.  Realism, 

II.  Original  Sin. 

I.  Its  Nature, 

1.  Erroneous  Views, 

2.  The  True  View, 

II.  Proof,    .... 

1.  That  Depravity  is  Universal, 

2.  That  Depravity  is  Total, 

3.  That  Depravity  is  Inborn, 

III.  Objections  Answered, 

III.  Inability. 

Symbolic  Statements, 

I.  The  Nature  of  Inability, 

1.  Negatively, 

2.  AfiBrmatively, 

II.  Proof  of  Inability,      . 

III.  Objections  Answered,     . 

IV.  Freedom  op  the  Will. 


Paob 

61 


128  INDEX. 

BOOK  THIBBi—mTEROLOQY. 

Introduction.    The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Page 

I.  The  Remonstrant  Theory,  .  .  .  .  .80 

II.  The  Reformed  Doctrine,         .....  80 

1.  First  Form.     One  Covenant,         .  .  .  .80 

2.  Second    Form.     Two  Covenants.     (1.)  Redemption. 

(2.)  Grace, 80 

3.  Identity  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,      ...  81 

Part  I.    The  Person  of  Christ. 

I.  Christ's  Messiahship. 

I.  The  Messiah  has  come,  .  .  .  .'  .82 

II.  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  ....  ^  82 

II.  Christ's   Person. 

I.  The  Doctrine,  .......      82 

1.  Christ's  Two  Natures,  ....  82 

2.  Christ's  One  Person,  .  .  .  .  .83 

II.  Symbolic  Statements  of  the  Doctrine,         ...  83 

III.  History  of  Error,  ......      83 

Part  II.    The  Work  of  Christ. 

Christ  a  Mediator,  .......  85 

/.    Chrisis   Offices. 

I.  Christ's  Office  as  Prophet,       .  .  .  .  ,  .85 

II.  Christ's  Office  as  Priest,   ......  85 

I.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  our  Priest?        .  .  .  .85 

1.  Definition  of  a  Priest,  ....  85 

2.  Christ  a  Real  Priest,  .....  8« 

3.  Nature  of  Christ's  Priesthood,  ...  86 

II.  How  does  Christ  Execute  the  Office  of  Priest?            .            .  86 
[I.]   The  Satisfaction  of  Justice,                   ...  86 

Definitions,       .......      86 

1.  Nature  of  the  Atonement,        ....  87 

2.  Necessity  of  the  Atonement,        .  .  .  .88 

3.  Perfection  of  the  Atonement.    (1.)  Its  Intrinsic  Value. 

(2.)  Its  Application,         .  .  .  .  .88 

4.  Extent  of   the    Atonement.       (1.)    Lutheran    View. 

(2.)  Arminian.    (3.)  Governmental.     (4)  Reformed,  89 

Classification  of  Theories  of  the  Atonement,            .  .      91 

History  of  the  Doctrine,    .....  91 

[II.]    Intercession,                       .            .            .            .  .91 

III.  Christ's  Office  as  King. 

I.  Extent  of  Christ's  Kingdom,        .  .  .  .  .92 

II.  Present  or  Future,      .  .  .  .  ,  .  92 

III.  Its  Spirituality, 92 


INDEX. 


129 


IV.  Ita  Only  Head, 

V.  Its  Administration, 

VI.  Its  Duration, 

//.   Christ's  Estates. 

I.  Humiliation,  .  .  .  , 

1.  The  Lutheran  View, 

2.  The  Reformed  View, 

II.  Exaltation,      .... 


///.    Vocation. 

I.  The  Call  of  the  Gospel,     .... 

II.  Effectual  Calling,        .... 

1.  Pelagian  View,        .... 

2.  Semi-Pelagian  View, 

3.  Reformed  View,     .... 

(1.)   It  is  Internal, 

(2.)   It  is  common  and  efficacious, 

(3.)   It  is  Congruous  to  the  Nature  of  G*^  iMi^A. 

(4.)  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Grace.  . 

History  op  the  Doctrine  op  Grace. 

I.  Prior  to  the  Pelagian  Controversy, 

II.  The  Palagian  Controversy,  .  .  .  . 

III.  The  Scholastic  Age,        ..... 

IV.  The  Reformation,      ...... 

V.  The  Arminian  Controversy,        .... 

VI.  Modern  Views,  ...... 

Part  III.    Application  of  Christ's  Work. 


Page 

1*2 
92 
92 


I.  Regeneration. 

I.   Its  Nature, 

. 

.      98 

1.   Rationalistic  Theory, 

. 

98 

2.   Ritualistic  Theory, 

.      98 

3.   Evangelical  Theory, 

. 

98 

II.  Its  Necessity, 

. 

.      99 

II.  Faith. 

I.  Protestant  Doctrine, 

. 

99 

1.   Elements  of  Faith. 

(1.)  Knowledge. 

(2.)  Assent. 

(3.)  Trust, 

. 

.      99 

2.  Object  of  Faith, 

. 

100 

3.   Effects  of  Faith,     . 

.     100 

II.  Romish  Doctrine, 

. 

100 

1.   Nature  of  Faith,     . 

.     100 

2.   Object  of  Faith, 

. 

100 

3.  Ground  of  Faith,    . 

. 

.     100 

4.  Effects  of  Faith, 

. 

101 

130 


INDEX. 


III.  Eepentance. 

I.  The  Protestant  Doctrine,  .... 

1.  Nature  of  Repentance.     (1.)  Definitions.     (2.)Analysi 

2.  Evidences  of  Repentance,        .... 

II.  The  Romish  Doctrine,         ..... 

IV.  Justification. 

I.  The  Common  Protestant  Doctrine, 

1.  Nature  of  Justification.     (1.)  It  is  a  Forensic  Lmputa- 

■tioo.     (2.)  It  includes  Imputation  of  Righteousness, 

2.  Ground  of  Justification, 

3.  Means  of  Justification, 

II.  Protestant  Doctrines, 

1.  Piscator,        ..... 

2.  Arminianism,     .... 

3.  Rationalism,  .... 

4.  New-school  Theology,   . 

5.  Governmental  Theory, 

6.  Dr.  Emmons'  Doctrine, 

III.  The  Romish  Doctrine,    .... 

1.  Nature  of  Justification, 

2.  Ground  of  Justification, 

3.  Means  of  Justification, 

V.  Sanctification. 

I.  Nature  of  Sanctification, 

1.  Pelagianism,  .... 

2.  Arminianism,    .... 

3.  Romanism,  .... 

4.  Protestantism,  .... 

(1.)  The  Author  of  Sanctification, 
(2.)  The  Subject  of  Sanctification,    . 
,  (3.)  Sanctification  not  mere  Reformation, 

(4.)  The  Means  of  Sanctification,     . 
(5.)  The  Fruits  of  Sanctification, 

II.  Perfectionism,  .... 

1.  The  Doctrine  Stated, 

(I.)  Pelagianism, 

(2.)  Romanism,     .... 

(3.)  Arminianism, 

(4.)  Oberlin  Theory, 

2.  Arguments  for  Perfectionism, 

3.  Arguments  against  Perfectionism, 

Eschatology. 
I.  State  op  the  Soul  after  Death. 

I.  Immortality  of  the  Soul,  .... 

II.  Intermediate  State,     .... 

1.  The  Scripture  Doctrine,     .  . 

2.  Erroneous  Views. 


Page 


INDEX. 


131 


II.  The  Resurrection. 

I.  The  Doctrine.    ..... 

1.  The  Fact,      ..... 

2.  Universality  of  the  Resurrection, 

3.  Identity  of  the  Resurrection  Body, 

4.  Nature  of  the  Resurrection  Body, 

5.  Time  of  the  Resurrection, 

II.  History  of  the  Doctrine, 

III.  The  End  of  the  World. 

I.  The  Second  Advent,     .... 

1.  The  Fact,      ..... 

2.  Time  of  the  Advent,      . 

II.  The  Millennium,  .... 

1.  Jewish  Doctrine, 

2.  Early  Christian  Opinions, 

3.  The  Alexandrian  View, 

4.  Modern  Opinion.    Restoration  of  the  Jews. 

6.  The  Kingdom  of  Christ, 

III.  The  Final  Judgment,     .... 

1.  Erroneous  Views, 

2.  The  True  View,       .... 

IV.  The  Destruction  of  the  World, 

IV.  Heaven  and  Hell. 

I.  Everlasting  Life,  .... 

II.  Eternal  Death,      . 

1.  Nature  of  Hell, 

2.  Duration  of  Future  Punishment, 

The  Sacraments. 

I.  The  Sacraments. 

I.  Nature  of  a  Sacrament,     . 

II.  Number  of  Sacraments, 

III.  EflScacy  of  the  Sacraments, 

1.  Romanism, 

2.  Lutheranism, 

3.  Reformed  Doctrine, 

4.  Remonstrant  Doctrine, 

IV.  Necessity  of  the  Sacraments, 

V.  Validity  of  the  Sacraments, 

II.  Baptism. 

I.  The  External  Form, 

1.  Mode  of  Baptism, 

2.  Formula  of  Baptism, 

II.  Design  and  Efficacy  of  Baptism, 

1.  The  Reformed  Doctrine, 

2.  The  Lutheran  Doctrine, 

3.  The  Romish  Doctrine, 


132 


INDEX. 


III.  Subjects  of  Baptism,  .... 

1.  Adult  Baptism,        ,  . 

2.  Infant  Baptism,  .... 

(1.)  Are  Infants  proper  Subjects  of  Baptism  ? 
(2.)  Whose  Children  are  entitled  to  Baptism? 
a.  Romish  Usage,    b,  Protestant  Usage, 
III.  The  Lord's  Supper. 

I.  Scripture  Account  of  the  Ordinance, 

1.  Its  Perpetual  Obligation, 

2.  Elements  Used, 

3.  How  Administered, 

4.  Its  Design, 

5.  The  Participants, 

II.  Doctrine  of  the  Early  Church, 

III.  Romish  Doctrine, 

IV.  Lutheran  Doctrine, 

V.  Reformed  Doctrine,     . 

1.  Christ's  Presence,    . 

2.  Receiving  Christ, 

3.  Efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 


Page 

lis 

118 
118 

118 

lis 

119 

120 
120 
120 
120 
120 
120 
121 
121 
121 
121 
121 
122 
122 


^N>< 


t^ 


DATE  DUE 


xa  •»•«-  "'^■■■jm,^ 


